Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

muriel_volestrangler

(102,668 posts)
16. And that's the point; you can't work out that dividing line from fossils
Sat Nov 28, 2015, 03:09 PM
Nov 2015

so that the number of separate hominid species found so far is still disputed, as is the line that led to us.

Why do you think I need to read more Dawkins?

If you want an example of how the "when fertile offspring can no longer be produced" definition isn't completely clear, try this:

Were Neanderthals a different species?

Hybrid males descended from both branches tend to be infertile, like mules. That’s because males have only one X chromosome, and if it happens to be one that impairs their fertility, then they may not reproduce. Females have two X chromosomes, so even if one is impaired, if the other one is normal, it can rescue her ability to bear young.

“So this suggests that the male hybrids might not have been fertile, whereas the females might have been fully fertile,” Svante Pääbo told Richard Harris of National Public Radio. Pääbo, the grand old man of ancient DNA based at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, was an author of the other paper, which appeared in Nature. We might have inherited most of our Neanderthal genes through hybrid females, he said.
...
“This underlines that modern humans and Neanderthals are indeed different species,” Fred Spoor told New Scientist. Spoor is also at the Leipzig Max Planck but was not a part of the Neanderthal research. Other scientists are more cautious about making so firm a declaration, but it’s clear that many lean toward that same conclusion, that Neanderthals were not Homo sapiens neanderthalensis but, rather, Homo neanderthalensis.

Darren Curnoe, a human evolutionary biologist at the University of New South Wales, blogged, “The latest findings from genome comparisons reinforce the status of Neanderthals and modern humans as distinct species. Those anthropologists who continue to regard Neanderthals as members of Homo sapiens now face a stronger challenge than ever reconciling their position with the DNA.”

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/02/04/were-neanderthals-a-different-species/

So, although non-Africans (and, thanks to very recent mixing, many Africans as well) have some Neanderthal DNA, many scientists regard them as a separate species from Homo sapiens, despite the offspring from the 2 groups being sufficiently fertile to be some of the ancestors of most of humanity.

The classification of older hominids - like Ardipithecus, Sahelanthropus, Paranthropus and Australopithecus - is even more up for discussion, because we can't use DNA in the same way for them.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

What a twit skepticscott Nov 2015 #1
That's not what his point is. Warren Stupidity Nov 2015 #2
Saying that it's "complicated" skepticscott Nov 2015 #4
This^ AlbertCat Nov 2015 #5
"A few blackened Serengei mandibles"?? AlbertCat Nov 2015 #6
But he didn't mention evolution at all muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #7
Please tell me you're being sarcastic skepticscott Nov 2015 #8
I'm perfectly serious, because I read the thing, and didn't have a kneejerk muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #9
The "proliferation of hominids" skepticscott Nov 2015 #10
No, the proliferation of hominids is not evolution muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #11
"But it is a special kind of social activity, one where lots of different human traits— AlbertCat Nov 2015 #14
Who said it was 'news'? It's a book review in the New Yorker muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #15
It's a book review in the New Yorker AlbertCat Nov 2015 #17
And you call me 'obtuse'. AlbertCat Nov 2015 #18
I pointed it out because skepticscott had said muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #19
The authors pretends that bullshit, strawman arguments are somehow legitimate skepticscott Nov 2015 #21
Yes, you are being deliberately obtuse skepticscott Nov 2015 #20
You said you were loving this; don't throw a tantrum, when you're tiring of your lesson muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #22
You still can't grasp the difference between talking about evolution skepticscott Nov 2015 #23
Your simple point was wrong. muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #24
The dispute between Bohr and Einstein skepticscott Nov 2015 #25
OK: muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #26
No, obviously he isn't referring to evolution, because he doesn't talk about it. AlbertCat Nov 2015 #12
And the dividing line between species, AlbertCat Nov 2015 #13
And that's the point; you can't work out that dividing line from fossils muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #16
An interesting bit of philosophistry Yorktown Nov 2015 #3
Well...Science is hardly just a "social activity" Duppers Dec 2015 #27
The scientific method can be derived from statistics. Religious belief violates statistics. DetlefK Dec 2015 #28
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Atheists & Agnostics»Spooked What do we learn ...»Reply #16