if homo sapiens not the only sentient hominid
- Thread starter aware of emptiness
- Start date
NomadicSky
Banned
Humans have many physical traits that diverge from group to group
size and skin color are the major ones.
I'm sure slave owners thought that black people were another species
Since there aren't any around how do we know they weren't just another various group?
And they're are plenty of supposed species whose offspring can reproduce with each other. Just take a look at all the species...or perhaps better word is breed, of dogs.
Keenir
Banned
Indigo said:
name two populations of modern-day humans that cannot produce fertile offspring with one another?
I'm not talking about percieved differences; I'm talking about real ones.
I'll put it to you this way -- there is more physical and genetic variation between two tribes of chimpanzees, than there is between all the humans of Earth.
*offering a truce* speaking of which, why don't you go have kids with the only other homonid left on Earth, and report back here, okay?
the species is Homo sylvestris.
(that is the name that was given in the 1600s to the chimpanzee)
Heart of Darkness said:
there are only one species of domestic dog (Canis familiaris)...the dingo is a subspecies thereof (Canis familiaris dingo).
I seem to remember reading that there's a theory some of the "hobbits" of Florens (or however you spell that island), might still exist, or might have in recent history, due to the legends surrounding them in the area. Wiki had something on that.
So an interesting question then becomes, "What if we DO find they exist still?"
So an interesting question then becomes, "What if we DO find they exist still?"
NomadicSky
Banned
posted by Keenir *offering a truce* speaking of which, why don't you go have kids with the only other homonid left on Earth, and report back here, okay?
the species is Homo sylvestrisSince you thought about having sex with a chimpanzee you go do it
This woman below is what the neathertal's might have looked like.
She looks human to me ugly yes but I've seen worse
I've seen worse as well, usually on Jerry Springer in episodes with titles like, "I Really LOVE My Sister!" and "You Ain't My Baby's Daddy!"
NomadicSky
Banned
I lived in West Virginia you can bet I've seen worse and a few people who look very much like that.
An oddly similar idea was shown (in reverse so to speak) with the first and last of the 1970's 'Planet of the Apes' series of films where the various 'lesser species' apes were gene modded for improved intelligence and then turned into slaves. Or where the apes used the humans for manual labour and complained of thier clumsiness and smell.
If any of our other humanoid relatives had ever turned up, slavery would have been an almost automatic event in any century prior to this one. In almost every culture, in any century prior to this 'homogenized mind set' we have built, the concept of human and subhuman prevailed. And sub-humans were obviously there for us to use and abuse like any other animal. Whether is was based on percieved physical difference (Black / White), cultural difference (European / everybody else) or species (Zoo's and big game hunters anybody?)
Luckily we've grown, or are growing, away from the mindset. But I'd say that either we'd get instant slavery (Got to have a houseboy! They're all the rage), or sport. (M'boto! Bring my my gun, I spy a fine Buck whose head would look great on the west Dining room wall!)
If any of our other humanoid relatives had ever turned up, slavery would have been an almost automatic event in any century prior to this one. In almost every culture, in any century prior to this 'homogenized mind set' we have built, the concept of human and subhuman prevailed. And sub-humans were obviously there for us to use and abuse like any other animal. Whether is was based on percieved physical difference (Black / White), cultural difference (European / everybody else) or species (Zoo's and big game hunters anybody?)
Luckily we've grown, or are growing, away from the mindset. But I'd say that either we'd get instant slavery (Got to have a houseboy! They're all the rage), or sport. (M'boto! Bring my my gun, I spy a fine Buck whose head would look great on the west Dining room wall!)
Well, if I remember correctly, a fundamental trait of species is that two species can't interbreed with one another. The question would be, then, could one of these ape men bear a human child. Then, by definition, we'd be the same species, no?
Agreed.
Dogs interbreed as they're all decended from a basic root stock that we can still find. The offspring are fertile as all of the species have the same DNA chromosome count.
But I've not read anything that shows that the various hominids are from the same gene branch. If they''re close we can breed, producing sterile offspring, like Horses and Donkeys. But if, for some reason, teh chromosome count differs, if can't happen. Anybody seen anything on gene maps or suppositions?
Dogs interbreed as they're all decended from a basic root stock that we can still find. The offspring are fertile as all of the species have the same DNA chromosome count.
But I've not read anything that shows that the various hominids are from the same gene branch. If they''re close we can breed, producing sterile offspring, like Horses and Donkeys. But if, for some reason, teh chromosome count differs, if can't happen. Anybody seen anything on gene maps or suppositions?
Well actually there is a hybid between a dolphin and a false killer whale that had a child by another dolphin. So chromosome count doesn't really matter.
ES
ES
I don't know where the dolphin and false killer whale are in relation to each other. So they produce off spring that are fertile with other dolphins? But wait, a quick check of Wikipedia shows that the beast is a (Pseudorca crassidens) or a large member of the Oceanic Dolphin family. So of course they can interbreed, they're the same species.
Got to love on-line encyclopedias.
Now, Horses count at 64, Donkeys at 62, the mules have 63, which cannot thus divide. Although, with work you can get a female pregnant...
So, we need a chromosome count on these other hominid species. If they're close or the same, odds are we could get a sterile offspring. Might be a nasty pregnancy though.
Got to love on-line encyclopedias.
Now, Horses count at 64, Donkeys at 62, the mules have 63, which cannot thus divide. Although, with work you can get a female pregnant...
So, we need a chromosome count on these other hominid species. If they're close or the same, odds are we could get a sterile offspring. Might be a nasty pregnancy though.
Just a couple of observations:
1) H. sapiens had the ability to organise large communities from the beginning. So clans &/or tribal units of over 50 - 100 people operating as a single community, which was common place, has a large advantage compared to all the other humans around, such as Neanderthals et al, who operated on a family type level of somewhere between 6 - 12 individuals (give or take).
2) H. sapiens were (are) great innovators where it seems Neanderthals et al weren't. This probably comes from our ability to be able to think abstractly, where our ancient human cousins may not have been able to think at such a high cognative level. Being able to think abstractly also allows for advanced problem solving, not to mention constantly trying to improve what is currently the case; whether it be a tool, a weapon, or more importantly, team work at both the tactical & strategic level. Neanderthals, however, once they had developed something to a certain point then, like H. erectus, no longer pushed the limits of their tools, weapons, & so forth, unlike our immediate ancestors (H. sapiens).
3) Knowledge. Although Neanderthals seemed intelligent enough, they didn't seem to accumulate knowledge & pass it on to the next generation in great volumes. Instead, like H. erectus, only the basics were passed on & not much else. H sapiens it seems, like their current descendants (in other words us), placed great emphasis upon education beyond merely the basics.
4) Taking the three points above, it shouldn't be surprising to note that H. sapiens could rapidly adapt to various environments in a very short period of time. From the deserts of Africa, to the snow covered mountains of Europe, to the hot rainforests of Asia, there you'll find H. sapiens. Our other human cousins, however, seemed to evolve into "specialists" & thus were more or less forced to remain within a certain region. If the environment, however, rapidly changed in their region, they were in trouble. H. sapiens, on the other hand, was (is) a jack-of-all-trades specie, which may lack particular "specialist" skills, but can nevertheless do pretty much everything anywhere. This means H. sapiens actually has a higher chance of survival as we can deal with many environments efficiently when required, whilst the other species of humans can only deal with a few.
Essentially, the way I see it, H.sapiens was merely a refinement. We had a little bit extra than the others where it mattered in the 4 areas above. In the short term, maybe Neanderthal &/or H. erectus may have had particular advantages in one or two skill/ability areas, but in the longer term, H. sapiens ability to organise, innovate, think abstractly, & accumulate knowledge over several centuries & pass it on, plus an ability to be highly adaptive to any given environment, gave them a better chance to survive in the long term in a not so friendly & highly competitive world. And if there's one certainty with evolution, a slight advantage is all that's needed to survive.
1) H. sapiens had the ability to organise large communities from the beginning. So clans &/or tribal units of over 50 - 100 people operating as a single community, which was common place, has a large advantage compared to all the other humans around, such as Neanderthals et al, who operated on a family type level of somewhere between 6 - 12 individuals (give or take).
2) H. sapiens were (are) great innovators where it seems Neanderthals et al weren't. This probably comes from our ability to be able to think abstractly, where our ancient human cousins may not have been able to think at such a high cognative level. Being able to think abstractly also allows for advanced problem solving, not to mention constantly trying to improve what is currently the case; whether it be a tool, a weapon, or more importantly, team work at both the tactical & strategic level. Neanderthals, however, once they had developed something to a certain point then, like H. erectus, no longer pushed the limits of their tools, weapons, & so forth, unlike our immediate ancestors (H. sapiens).
3) Knowledge. Although Neanderthals seemed intelligent enough, they didn't seem to accumulate knowledge & pass it on to the next generation in great volumes. Instead, like H. erectus, only the basics were passed on & not much else. H sapiens it seems, like their current descendants (in other words us), placed great emphasis upon education beyond merely the basics.
4) Taking the three points above, it shouldn't be surprising to note that H. sapiens could rapidly adapt to various environments in a very short period of time. From the deserts of Africa, to the snow covered mountains of Europe, to the hot rainforests of Asia, there you'll find H. sapiens. Our other human cousins, however, seemed to evolve into "specialists" & thus were more or less forced to remain within a certain region. If the environment, however, rapidly changed in their region, they were in trouble. H. sapiens, on the other hand, was (is) a jack-of-all-trades specie, which may lack particular "specialist" skills, but can nevertheless do pretty much everything anywhere. This means H. sapiens actually has a higher chance of survival as we can deal with many environments efficiently when required, whilst the other species of humans can only deal with a few.
Essentially, the way I see it, H.sapiens was merely a refinement. We had a little bit extra than the others where it mattered in the 4 areas above. In the short term, maybe Neanderthal &/or H. erectus may have had particular advantages in one or two skill/ability areas, but in the longer term, H. sapiens ability to organise, innovate, think abstractly, & accumulate knowledge over several centuries & pass it on, plus an ability to be highly adaptive to any given environment, gave them a better chance to survive in the long term in a not so friendly & highly competitive world. And if there's one certainty with evolution, a slight advantage is all that's needed to survive.