All Humans Are Not Homo Sapiens?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I've had this idea, or Conspiracy Theory if you will about the Human Race and Mankind for about 2 years now. I can not find much information or research about my specific idea, so I was just wondering what you guys think about my layman attempt of a Theory.

We are taught that all Humans belong to the Species of Homo Sapien and to the Subspecies of Homo Sapien Sapien. That all Races and Ethnicities are actually the same Species and Subspecies of Modern Human, i.e. Homo Sapiens.

Point 1
It is evident that the Race of an individual can be determined from nothing more than their skeletal remains.

Point 2
We can determine an individual's Ethnicity, Race, and Lineage from their DNA.

Point 3
It is a well know fact that animals from the same Genus, but different Species can often time interbreed and produce offspring.


Now my point or question is... Isn't this evidence that in fact the different Races and Ethnicities are actually different Species or Subspecies? If the differences in race can be so drastic as to cause reoccurring and predictable variations in skeletal structure, and that different races and ethnicities can be accurately determined by mapping out their DNA, wouldn't this be clear proof that we are dealing with different species here?

We know that many different Species belonging to the Genus Homo were alive and shared the Earth at relatively the same time. I am speculating that many of the "thought to be extinct" species of the Genus Homo, are actually the direct ancestors of the different Human Races that we see today. Homo Neanderthalensis may be the common ancestor for most Europeans. Homo Floresiensis may be the common ancestor of Southern and Eastern Asians. The many Species of Genus Homo found in Africa could be the direct ancestors of the Africans.

In my lay-opinion, the different Races belonging to different ancestral Species seems a more fitting and plausible answer to why the different races have such unique skeletal structures and distinct outward appearances, rather than the academically accepted teaching that all Modern Humans are Homo Sapien Sapien, and that the many competing Homo species simply died out and gave way for Homo Sapien Sapien to rule supreme and absolute.

Could all of the different wars, fighting, violence, and racism we have witnessed throughout Human History be a result of a subconscious instinct to cling to our natural Species/Subspecies while fighting off and staying separate from other Species/Subspecies?

Now, what would be the point in geneticists, scientists, researchers, and governments to lie or withhold this type of information from us? I think it is a crude attempt to promote world peace. If it is discovered that in fact, the different Human Races are actually different species, this may be justification for racism, genocide, and separatism.




posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Point 3
It is a well know fact that animals from the same Genus, but different Species can often time interbreed and produce offspring.


Yea but they are not fetile offspring, meaning they are still very distinct species.



No the races of man aren't different species, as long as they can produce viable and fertile offspring they are of one species, this is especially true as people from all races can produce offspring with absolutely no complications. Compare that with more varied, yet still a single species animals like dogs. Many of the different breeds have trouble reproducing for numerous factors and thus are on their way to becoming separate species. But man is nowhere near that stage.

[edit on 10/27/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
We're different species the same way different types of cats or dogs are separate species.
Still homo sapiens, but adapted towards certain habitats.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
We're different species the same way different types of cats or dogs are separate species.
Still homo sapiens, but adapted towards certain habitats.


They are not separate species, but rather sub-species. However you point is acknowledged.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


There are cases of inter-species breeding
# liger = male lion + female tiger
# tigon or tiglon = male tiger + female lion
# mule = male donkey + female horse
# hinny = male horse + female donkey (jenny)
# zorse = zebra + horse
# zonkey or zebrass = zebra + donkey (ass)
# cama = camel + llama
# catalo or beefalo = buffalo + cattle
# yakalo = yak + buffalo
# wholphin = whale + dolphin (specifically a false killer whale and a bottlenose dolphin)
# Toast of Botswana = goat + sheep

Most of the offspring of these unions are incapable of producing young.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The mule is always the example that jumps to mind first for me, but thanks for that list.

The infertile bit (as I suspect you are aware) is what makes the parents of the hybrid separate species.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Some hybrids are fertile and can reproduce:
Beefalo
Wolfdog
I think there are others. Weird.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Unfortunately, the argument of human origins has been raging for quite some time between those that believe in Regional Continuity and those that believe in Replacement. There have been some noble efforts from members of the Regional Continuity camp, but evidence from modern genetics and mitochondrial DNA is almost insurmountable. I think you would probably be interested in reading some of Wolpoff's material. His first name has escaped me at the moment. He makes some good points in favor of Regional Continuity. I've copied and pasted a small portion of a paper about this very topic I wrote as an undergrad. It's just some basic evidence in favor of Replacement. Feel free to skip if you are so inclined!

The strongest evidence in support of the RAE (Replacement or Out of Africa theory....basically we all came from one tribe of Homo sapien) model lies in the analysis of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Unlike in nuclear DNA where both parents contribute genetic material to the next generation, mtDNA is maternally inherited only. This method was used by biochemists R. Cann, M. Stoneking, and A. C. Wilson to study 147 women from Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia, and New Guinea. The results indicated that there was a relatively small amount of genetic difference between the entire group. With these results, Cann, et al. proposed that all females could trace their mtDNA back approximately 200,000 years to an African “Eve”. Since Cann, et al. there have been other studies, such as one done by Vigilant, Hedges, and Templeton, that have all echoed the same notion that modern populations contain ancestral mtNA present 200,000 years ago in an African population. There are disputes of the studies, including Hedges and Templeton’s own proposal based on a complex computer analysis that there may have been various evolutionary trees of non-African origin. The idea of an evolutionary “Eve” has been analyzed and corrected as not being a single woman or mother, but rather a female carrier of an ancestral strand of mtDNA; however, the fact remains that there is relatively little mtDNA variation among modern humans, especially when compared to the Great Apes, which is a quite strong argument in favor of the RAE model (McGraw et al: 2005).



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well nature doesn't care about being simple or adhering to rules. I think those exceptions to the speciation rule of thumb might just be of complex species structures.

I don't know the name of the phenomena but it's like when you have like a dozen subspecies of gecko around a mountain.

Subspecies A can breed with B and B with C and C with D and D with E but E can't breed with A.

Only two of these 5 subspecies are genetically distinct beyond species.

[edit on 10/27/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


There are cases of inter-species breeding
# liger = male lion + female tiger
# tigon or tiglon = male tiger + female lion
# mule = male donkey + female horse
# hinny = male horse + female donkey (jenny)
# zorse = zebra + horse
# zonkey or zebrass = zebra + donkey (ass)
# cama = camel + llama
# catalo or beefalo = buffalo + cattle
# yakalo = yak + buffalo
# wholphin = whale + dolphin (specifically a false killer whale and a bottlenose dolphin)
# Toast of Botswana = goat + sheep

Most of the offspring of these unions are incapable of producing young.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by Phage]


Excellent post:

Maybe, that's where evolution reached a point.... Could possibly explain the Duck billed Platypus and many insects and mammals...

Didn't dolphins once come out of the water, I'm sure i read that.... or did they go into the sea, FROM a land animal?

Fascinating thread...

As for the hybrids that can't breed, but of course.... what do you breed them with?

Surely they are the first of their kind, and breeding isn't a natural function for such a beast. I mean, Imagine how a LIGER thinks....

But I imagine, if say 100 Ligers could be bred, and they tried mating them all, I reckon 1 in 100 could possibly produce offspring with 'better' DNA.

I mean just look at the Duck billed Platypus.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


"The exception that makes the rule". The ones that are "successful" must be very closely related.

I know there isn't any genetic evidence of it but I don't think the possibility of a neanderthal/cro-magnon mix has been completely ruled out.

Correct me if I wrong...please. There's I guy where I work that I have really strong suspicions about.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   
this will shut you's up www3.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
I mean just look at the Duck billed Platypus.


Despite it's appearance, the platypus is not a mix of lots of different animals, it has an incredibly ancient lineage of which it is one of very few left of that entire family.

Evolution doesn't work by mashing creatures together.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


ha, yea, tell me about it. Ah if only I had a picture of David Barnfather to show you. Surely he must be a geneographic mystery.


"The exception that makes the rule". The ones that are "successful" must be very closely related.


Well yea, take the wolfdog for instance. All dogs evolved from wolves beginning less than 50,000 years ago. That's amazing when you think about it, as the subspecies of man have been following their respective divergent evolution trends for longer than that yet we are no where near as diverse. In fact oddly, as far as genetic diversity goes, humanity is fairly poor as compared with most animals.

[edit on 10/27/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
im from sydney aus and the pratapus has a realy large dna its male has a spur on its rear fliper and if you get sting it can be fatal or near fatalh



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimnal
 


Not to mention that it lays eggs rather than live young and excretes milk from mammary glands under the skin rather than from nipples.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
dogs closes relative is a wezal isnt it



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimnal
 




........ No, the dogs closest relative is the wolf. Then I'm guessing that the fox is the next closest. There will be plenty of things between dogs and weasel.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Originally posted by mr-lizard
I mean just look at the Duck billed Platypus.


Despite it's appearance, the platypus is not a mix of lots of different animals, it has an incredibly ancient lineage of which it is one of very few left of that entire family.

Evolution doesn't work by mashing creatures together.


I never said it does...

I was proposing an alternative venture of creating a hyrbid breeding system to compare with our natural lineage, in the study of compatibility between various living creatures and those we have chosen to breed.

I'm sorry I didn't spell it out correctly, maybe it was the dig at the Ornithorhynchus anatinus that caused you to think like you did.

I forgive you.





top topics
 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join