All Humans Are Not Homo Sapiens?

Originally posted by mr-lizard
in the study of compatibility between various living creatures and those we have chosen to breed.

I'm not exactly sure what your getting at, your language is vague but I'll point out that all "compatible" creatures are very closely related to each other and within the same lineage.

Or are you just talking about selective breeding.

I watched a television program called "The Ultimate Guide: Dogs" on the Discovery Channel. So based on that single program, I was briefly introduced to the fact that all dogs are of a single Species.

However, the fact that there were dozens of Hominids of the Genus Homo living at roughly the same time, and that some of these different Hominids have similar skeletal features unique to certain Races, gives compelling arguments that it is very possible that each Race evolved from different Hominid Species.

In nature, we see many animals of the same Genus, but different Species are able to coexist. I find it hard to believe with full faith that here we are... all the Races of the world are anatomically different, and every single Hominid died out except "us."

reply to post by Sahabi


Well genetics disagrees with you. The human genome map showed us the that the 'Out of Africa' Theory was accurate, that every race of human still alive can trace it's roots some 200,000 years to the archaic Africans. We are ALL Africans.

From an anatomical standpoint, we are barely different at all.

I must have missed something but I could have sworn that my teacher told us that we were homo sapien sapiens? One of us must have been stoned that day That was 27 years or more ago. LOL

Since this is a Conspiracy-based forum, does anyone have any resources of opposing research to the Human genome Project? For the sake of argument and this thread, how can we truly believe their published results?

Just interested in "outside the box" ideas.

reply to post by Sahabi


Well I'm pretty into this stuff and I haven't seen anything so much as hinting at scientists objecting to it in any way. In fact the only place in recent science that I've seen that happening is with the fields that are tied to politics, namely climate change. All the evidence generally points at the sun, but the politicians misrepresent the science to say man- and that kinda stuff.

"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? "

It may be a factor, but the arms industry and nationalism is a bigger cause. However, some of the elite see themselves as a separate species so you may have a point.

reply to post by BindareDundat


Our species is Homo sapiens, but our subspecies (modern human, the only subspecies in Homo sapiens) is Homo sapiens sapiens. So yes, he was correct.

All non Africans have Neanderthal genes.

Looks like I was very close to the truth on my first tread

Sahabi you are quite right in one point.

That people are NOT all the same. Its quite obvious. But from a Taxonomic point of view we are, but thats not because we really are its more about taxonomic Convinience.

People have come a really long way, i mean its amazing how we managed from being animals to ...well now.

Amazing.

However evolution kinda lagged behind, technicly we are still caveman. And if you analyze our behavior with caveman logic in mind many things become clear.

I have the theory that if there is low population density any outsider coming into the "clan" will be welcome since he brings fresh new DNA that will maybe make the clan more succesful.

IF there is High population density and everything seems to be going just fine then there is the general thought that there is no need for new DNA since the own one seems superior. This will mean the Outsider will mostly be driven out.

I could go on for a very long time to describe a conflict spiraling out of control.

The problem is that we are too much people. Our biology isnt ready for us. If we are all the same (all white or black or pink striped) there would still be problems.

If some species interbreed but the result of the offspring cannot reproduce, isn't it somewhat analogous to Rh negative females being (naturally) unable to reproduce with Rh positive males?

I mean Rhogane(sp?) is a shot that prevents miscarriage, but without this many Rh women cannot interbreed. Wouldn't this suggest that they are somehow a different species? At least a sub-species or hybrid of some sort.

any one remember not to long ago the boy who was found to have a triple helix dna structure ? would u call that same species ? simple mutation

Apologies in advance for Grimnal.....Most of us know how to spell in Australia, obviously someone played a joke and moved his keyboard keys about.

Now, the Platypus is not only a Mammal, it is a Monotreme....Only TWO monotremes currently exist on Planet Earth, both in Australia.
They Are Mammals that Lay Eggs.........Maybe they are related to Dinosaurs and Lacerta??.

As is usual, and becoming more prevalent, Scientists do not know everything. In fact their work is mostly Theory, conjecture and plain guessing.

In the early 2000s a Biogeneticist stated that ALL Homo Sapiens come from an "Eve" that existed in East Africa 66,000 years ago...not before, not after.

This is despite knowledge that Neanderthal man was in Europe up to 250,000 years ago, not to mention all the other Homo Species spread around the Earth anywhere up to 1-2 million years ago.

Indeed, apparently Homo Sapien teeth have been discovered in Israel dated to 400,000 years ago.

Native Australian peoples have genetic traits similar to Asia and India (which makes sense if they came from Europe). In Fact the Australian Dark man is Considered Caucasian (they have the Neanderthal gene), Not African.

The Huge Diversity of "Types" of Humans on Africa, is greater than all types on the rest of the planet.
Yet, They seem to be all classed as "Negroid", even tho a Bushman is so different from a Masai, they could be from different planets.....yet they live on the same continent that the "Experts" say they all came from only 66000 years ago.

It is well known that the European Neanderthal had a spoken language, some consider that "Language" came from outside of Africa and was imported.

Scientists contradict each other so much on their "Theories", we honestly may never know for sure how man come about...
Of Course, none of this considers the "Alien" equation, or what the Lizard Men think of us...

All humans are still 95+% homosapien, but they have genes of other hominids mixed in, for example Neanderthal and Denisovans. This shows that they bred and shared genes with sapiens, which explains our genetic diversity.

Originally posted by gort51
In the early 2000s a Biogeneticist stated that ALL Homo Sapiens come from an "Eve" that existed in East Africa 66,000 years ago...not before, not after.

This is not true. The concept of mitochondrial eve is not all humans coming from a single ancestor. The human population has rarely dipped below 10,000, although I've seen evidence that suggests it might have been as low as 2000 as one point. You cannot have an entire species coming from a single ancestor. It is not possible.

Indeed, apparently Homo Sapien teeth have been discovered in Israel dated to 400,000 years ago.

You got a link on that? Homo sapiens in their current anatomical form, did not exist 400,000 years ago. Perhaps you are referring to homo sapien ancestors, Neanderthals (also called archaic homo sapiens), or perhaps Rhodesiensis or Ergaster.

The Huge Diversity of "Types" of Humans on Africa, is greater than all types on the rest of the planet.
Yet, They seem to be all classed as "Negroid", even tho a Bushman is so different from a Masai, they could be from different planets.....yet they live on the same continent that the "Experts" say they all came from only 66000 years ago.

According to evidence there were actually several migrations out of Africa by homo sapiens and their ancestors.

Some of us have neanderthal genetics in us, some of have Cro-magnum genetics. They haven't tested everyones genetics so it's impossible to know if there are other crosses in humans. Some have both genes, some have neither. I'm sure that the class, Homo-sapiens, includes these people. No matter how different we are, we can get along if we make the effort. Maybe there are some that even have Reptilian genetics in them. I doubt that though. The only thing I can find that would be close to Reptilian is the fact that some people have a different sort of metabolism than others. Some have lower body temperatures and have different dietary needs. Others have higher body temperatures and have a shorter but more active lifespan. This is related to geographic ancestral adaptations to cold or hot environments. Neither are reptilians. There are differences out there caused by gene expression and metal toxicity also. Sometimes people get deformed from putting metals in the body because of frequency changes of the body structure and color changes associated with this phenomenon. There is no such thing as normal.

reply to post by rickymouse


Yes, there's a good chance there is more mixed into our DNA that we are aware of. I don't think science can actually determine that without having a genome mapped for the species we are being compared to, however, so it's difficult to say if we'd even be able to tell if that did happen. Maybe some day, however.

Originally posted by Goldcurrent
If some species interbreed but the result of the offspring cannot reproduce, isn't it somewhat analogous to Rh negative females being (naturally) unable to reproduce with Rh positive males?

No, they can reproduce. It's just that any child after the first one will have serious defects because the mother's body builds up antibodies to the child's Rh + blood.

I mean Rhogane(sp?) is a shot that prevents miscarriage, but without this many Rh women cannot interbreed. Wouldn't this suggest that they are somehow a different species? At least a sub-species or hybrid of some sort.

Even Rh + positive women miscarry. It's not exclusive to Rh - women.

reply to post by Barcs


It's important to also note that not all humans have been tested. Some people wouldn't even consider giving blood or tissue for genetic testing Testing these common people on any than a volunteer basis has never been officially done. I say officially because we don't know what happens to our tissues after operations are done or by acquisition of other means. We have laws in place that govern release of this personal information but not the for collecting and testing of it as anonymous tissue.

Although species is an artificial man made concept, it's safe to say that whatever the definition, humans certainly belong to just one species, as we're genetically speaking nearly identical with each other in comparison to the level of genetic variation within most other known species..

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Barcs

 

It's important to also note that not all humans have been tested. Some people wouldn't even consider giving blood or tissue for genetic testing Testing these common people on any than a volunteer basis has never been officially done. I say officially because we don't know what happens to our tissues after operations are done or by acquisition of other means. We have laws in place that govern release of this personal information but not the for collecting and testing of it as anonymous tissue.

Slightly OT, but this reminds me of something. Ethics plays a big part of the reasons why some people will not allow themselves to be tested. My 15 year old is taking Bio this year, and this isn't our biology. It's all molecular bio and biochemistry. Right now they're talking about bioethics and were watching a film that excerpted part of Gattaca, if you've ever seen that. Fortunately, I already had that movie so we sat down and watched it over the weekend.

It could really open a Pandora's box if everyone was mandated to have themselves sequenced. We're a long way from designer babies, but insurance companies could, and probably would, discriminate based solely on what genetic predisposition you might have to certain diseases. They could exclude you based on a pre-existing condition that you don't even have yet.

Sorry to derail. I thought that was slightly relevant!