Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The definition of homo sapiens(huamn)

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I think this should not post on political mud-pit forum anyway.

en.wikipedia.org...
This is the wiki page of homo sapiens.

en.wikipedia.org...
And the page of Ursus.

There's many species and subspecies on the Ursus page ,I saw black bear and brown bear are not a same species.Because their color are different?Then why those different color of human is a same species?And if they are same species,why there's no human subspecies classify by their living area and subtle difference ?




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   

candlestick
I think this should not post on political mud-pit forum anyway.

en.wikipedia.org...
This is the wiki page of homo sapiens.

en.wikipedia.org...
And the page of Ursus.

There's many species and subspecies on the Ursus page ,I saw black bear and brown bear are not a same species.Because their color are different?Then why those different color of human is a same species?And if they are same species,why there's no human subspecies classify by their living area and subtle difference ?


Because color is not something that determines species.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GetHyped
 


What do you mean ?this is the page content you linked:


Difficulty of defining "species" and identifying particular species

It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms,15 and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.

Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition, known as the Biological Species Concept (BSC) of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". It has been argued that this definition of species is not only a useful formulation, but is also a natural consequence of the effect of sexual reproduction on the dynamics of natural selection.



But there's animals are offspring of 2 species...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   

candlestick
There's many species and subspecies on the Ursus page ,I saw black bear and brown bear are not a same species.Because their color are different?

No, they have many different characteristics, just look at the physical description section of the pages for both species.

Edited to add that modern humans are a subspecies of homo sapiens, homo sapiens sapiens.
edit on 12/4/2014 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   

ArMaP
No, they have many different characteristics, just look at the physical description section of the pages for both species.


Oh,I see.But I think black people and white people have many different characteristics also.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by candlestick
 


Yes, there are some differences, but not that big. Differences like the general shape of the skull, for example, are not really specific for white or black people, they are just more common in one than in the other.

At least that's what I remember reading about, I'm far from a specialist in this subject.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I did some studies on the ancient origination of words. I found that Huma loosely means that which defines. Humans made that word to identify people. Human traits are those that identify...clothes, hairstyle, jewelry, etc....

Wrapping a baby in something to keep it warm is a human trait. Clothing that covers us defines us as human as does the paints or makeup that people put on their faces. These are traits that other animals do not possess, other than some sea creatures that pick up shells to cover themselves to feel secure.

Now there are many different types of humans and to tell them apart we use what they wear or marks or jewelry on their body. We classify them by these traits. We inappropriately judge people by their appearance. This has nothing to do with judging the good or bad in a person. Yet we are taught to respect people by their clothes...which is wrong. We should judge them by their actions. A certain class of people have programmed us to believe in something that is not true.

Sorry for being off topic OP. S&F



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


It's off topic ...maybe the concept of homo sapiens is false.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Maybe our physical differences come from the fact that white people are mongrels, a cross between homo-sapiens, Homo-erectus and Neanderthals.

Black people are probably the only true homo-sapiens around.

I've probably got that completely wrong, but that is how it reads in the articles.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by candlestick
 


Homo sapiens is just a couple of words man made up to define something. It is just words. I like to call us people, that would include a lot of the other hominids. Neanderthals were people too, so are people of all races.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by candlestick
 


Humans are classified further, perhaps not scientifically, but sociologically/psychologically/aesthetically amongst other things. Height, weight, level of attraction, color, eye color, hair color, wealth, attitude, personality, fitness, and most of all, career/skills. So yes, there are many different 'types' of human, and I think you are more referring to nationalities, and yes I agree there are differences. Instead of having all those differences to recognize in bears, perhaps they just use one word to separate the fact that there is a difference amongst them. Look at all the different types of dog, though aesthetically varying extremely, perhaps they can be compared to humans, in that as humans and all humans, dogs are all dogs, and in their species they can cross reproduce with 'different' types, which I believe is the main signature of specie.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by candlestick
 

and I think you are more referring to nationalities


No,I said skin color.
en.wikipedia.org...
You mentioned dogs(Canis lupus familiaris) ,they looks really different but can breeding...so it's a same subspecies.

I feel so mess up for biology taxonomy.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

candlestick

ImaFungi
reply to post by candlestick
 

and I think you are more referring to nationalities


No,I said skin color.
en.wikipedia.org...
You mentioned dogs(Canis lupus familiaris) ,they looks really different but can breeding...so it's a same subspecies.

I feel so mess up for biology taxonomy.


So you think besides nationalities like African, and then different kinds of Africans, and south america, and Brazilians and Argentinians, and Chinese and Taiwanese, and North Korean and Japanese and Hawaiian, we should also classify humans scientifically by measuring and charting every humans skin color and that is how we decide their sub species?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


That would have strange results, many people would change subspecies after going to the beach in the summer and back again to the previous subspecies in the winter.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Not by the skin color only ,but I prefer there's a subdivision list as subspecies of bear.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by candlestick
 


If you want to go classifying people of different colours as different species, go right ahead. Personally, I classify people of different intelligence as different species. Wannabe racists and apologists for colour prejudice, for example, I classify as a very inferior subspecies of Homo sapiens. In an ideal word, they would be prevented from breeding — and from posting rubbish on the internet.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   

candlestick
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Not by the skin color only ,but I prefer there's a subdivision list as subspecies of bear.


Make a list and mail it to all the scientists and see what they think



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Huh oh Candlestick....looks like the political correctness police have been alerted to your posting! Beg forgiveness or Astyanax will have you castrated. One mussn't speak of our differences, it doesn't bode well for the health of the "hive"



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by EdSurly
 


Political correctness? You're barking up the wrong tree, gun boy. I work for the Stupidity Police.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by candlestick
 


If you want to go classifying people of different colours as different species, go right ahead. Personally, I classify people of different intelligence as different species. Wannabe racists and apologists for colour prejudice, for example, I classify as a very inferior subspecies of Homo sapiens. In an ideal word, they would be prevented from breeding — and from posting rubbish on the internet.


Oh,so if you are a scientist and you find a new subspecies of human ,that is your reason to hate?That sounds like a racist for me.Haters always hate.And I never say we should hate a new subspecies on the thread.


EdSurly
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Huh oh Candlestick....looks like the political correctness police have been alerted to your posting! Beg forgiveness or Astyanax will have you castrated. One mussn't speak of our differences, it doesn't bode well for the health of the "hive"


Nevermind,I never say I am a male member.But I prefer political correctness police should go back to Political Mud-Pit.

(seem you really pro gun by your avatar ,me too)






top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join