#Does Homo Sapiens Sapiens exist?

#Is Homo Sapiens the missing link in between Homo Erectus or another predecessor? (And does neanderthal have a role)

#Would Homo Sapiens Sapiens be a new species?

#Could this question be solved without resorting to the terminology of race?

#Are you personally Homo Sapiens, or Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and if so, what makes you which?

#Are there possibly transitional forms?

#Would Homo Sapiens Sapiens be the white race?

:eek:

#Does Homo Sapiens Sapiens exist?

All humans alive on Earth today are members of the same species and subspecies, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

#Is Homo Sapiens the missing link in between Homo Erectus or another predecessor? (And does neanderthal have a role)

Nowadays the scientific community usually regards Homo Erectus as being of a seperate hominid line from Homo Sapiens. Homo Erectus evolved from Homo Ergaster, as did Homo Heidelbergensis, from which both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis are thought to have evolved.

#Would Homo Sapiens Sapiens be a new species?

The second "Sapiens" in "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" denotes subspecies. So Homo Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Sapiens are the same species. Right now, "Sapiens" is the only existing subspecies of Homo Sapiens. However there has been debate in recent years as to whether Neanderthals (H. Neanderthalensis) should be considered a subspecies of Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis).

#Could this question be solved without resorting to the terminology of race?

Race has nothing to do with this. We're talking about species and subspecies. Although the human races are varied enough that they coul be considered seperate subspecies, they generally are not.

#Are you personally Homo Sapiens, or Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and if so, what makes you which?

We are all Homo Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

#Are there possibly transitional forms?

Between Homo Sapiens Sapiens and it's predecessors, yes.

#Would Homo Sapiens Sapiens be the white race?

See above.

All humans alive on Earth today are members of the same species and subspecies, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

I do not agree.

Nowadays the scientific community usually regards Homo Erectus as being of a seperate hominid line from Homo Sapiens.

I did not know this. Do you have any good links?

Homo Erectus evolved from Homo Ergaster, as did Homo Heidelbergensis, from which both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis are thought to have evolved.

Ok.

The second "Sapiens" in "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" denotes subspecies. So Homo Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Sapiens are the same species. Right now, "Sapiens" is the only existing subspecies of Homo Sapiens.

I do not agree. Do you have any good links with evidence for this, or is it simply something oft-repeated?

However there has been debate in recent years as to whether Neanderthals (H. Neanderthalensis) should be considered a subspecies of Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis).

Neanderthal man had 48 instead of 46 chromosomes.

We're talking about species and subspecies. Although the human races are varied enough that they coul be considered seperate subspecies, they generally are not.

I believe this is due to political correctness within academia.

We are all Homo Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

All of us all are one of the two.

Between Homo Sapiens Sapiens and it's predecessors, yes.

How many joined ribs do you have on each side of your chest? 11? This is the number (count)-that Homo Sapiens have. On the other hand, homo Sapiens Sapiens have 17 or 18 joined ribs on each side. You may dismiss this, although consider the following: neanderthal, homo erectus, missing link, the chimpanzee- what do these all have in common? 11 letters, obviously, and in the case of the chimpanzee, 13. Rather odd, I must say considering these all have certain... anatomical features in common.

I did not know this. Do you have any good links?

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

I do not agree. Do you have any good links with evidence for this, or is it simply something oft-repeated?

The scientific community generally considers H. Sapiens to have only one subspecies, 'Sapiens". Although it does seem rather odd to me personally, considering the amount of variation between the races.

I don't have any links at the moment.

Neanderthal man had 48 instead of 46 chromosomes.

I know. That's why the theory of Neanderthals being a subspecies of H. sapiens is usually rejected. Although I've heard it pop up from time to time.

I believe this is due to political correctness within academia.

I agree.

All of us all are one of the two.

I suppose if the different races qualify as subspecies then H. Sapiens Sapiens would be the white race, if it is considered the most evolved. But then wouldn't you need to classify the other races as different subspecies - H. Sapiens Africanus, H. Sapiens Australis, etc - instead of simply refferring to them as "Homo Sapiens".

How many joined ribs do you have on each side of your chest? 11? This is the number (count)-that Homo Sapiens have. On the other hand, homo Sapiens Sapiens have 17 or 18 joined ribs on each side. You may dismiss this, although consider the following: neanderthal, homo erectus, missing link, the chimpanzee- what do these all have in common? 11 letters, obviously, and in the case of the chimpanzee, 13. Rather odd, I must say considering these all have certain... anatomical features in common.

Could you elaborate on this further?

I found this:

However, Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and 80's, although many authors today have returned to the previous two-species hypothesis. Either way, Neanderthals represent a very close evolutionary relative of modern humans.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm

I believe this was because of the advent of genetic testing, which allowed for the discovery of the chromosome discrepancy (as you noted before) between H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html



The scientific community generally considers H. Sapiens to have only one subspecies, 'Sapiens". Although it does seem rather odd to me personally, considering the amount of variation between the races.

Therer is more variation within so-called human races than between so-called human races. If you take this approach, you would have tons of subspecies within races.




I suppose if the different races qualify as subspecies then H. Sapiens Sapiens would be the white race, if it is considered the most evolved. But then wouldn't you need to classify the other races as different subspecies - H. Sapiens Africanus, H. Sapiens Australis, etc - instead of simply refferring to them as "Homo Sapiens".

Why would the white race be considered the most evolved? There isn't anything that distinguishes the white race from other races to considered nonwhite races less evolved than the white race.

How does anyone know that Neanderthal Man had 48 chromosomes? Where is the evidence for that? If they had 48 chromosomes as claimed then the title Man is undesired because it would have been an ape.

How about a genetic link?

Therer is more variation within so-called human races than between so-called human races. If you take this approach, you would have tons of subspecies within races.

Is this a scientific argument???
After all there is probably a greater number of differences in the properties between certain metals than between metals and non-metals. I suppose therefore that metals and non-metals don't exist?... No classification is ever done by simply counting the number of differences, why race should be an exception is something I would like you to explain.


Does that mean a pygmy in Africa could be genetically closer to me than my brother or second cousin? I find that hard to believe. You can try for generations, but you will never get an asian born from a nordic family, or a meditteranean born from a negroid one. Look at the children of mixed race parents, they tend to look unlike either parent, yet when the parents are of the same race, even if they are from quite distant clades, the children are much, much more likely to look like either one, or both of the parents or like someone in the family. Each group is a different, somewhat isolated breeding unit. There is genetic variation, but that overall genetic pool is continuing and self replicating. The very essence of the goals of reproduction.
Each of these breeding units is creating individuals that are similar to their progenitors. This can be done by members within a race, but take a member from outside that race and it becomes impossible. It is this concept which defines a race, subspecies or variation because it has practical purposes, explain historically what has actually happened and can be used to predict breeding outcomes.



The genetic differences between races are much more CONSISTENT than the genetic differences with a race, in the same way the difference in properties between non-metals and metals, are more consistent (bad analogy, I know) than the differences between metals.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

I suppose if the different races qualify as subspecies then H. Sapiens Sapiens would be the white race, if it is considered the most evolved. But then wouldn't you need to classify the other races as different subspecies - H. Sapiens Africanus, H. Sapiens Australis, etc - instead of simply refferring to them as "Homo Sapiens".



Could you elaborate on this further?
Many make the mistake to think that 'More evolved' mean a superior, better organism. The term is meant in a quantitative, not qualitative context. A more evolved organism would be one that has undergone more change from its ancestors. In this case, whichever race has undergone the greatest morphological and genetic change from our parent species or subspecies, would be the more evolved. Whether this mean that this race is 'better' is purely a subjective opinion.

In response to the question that I have quoted, the other races would have to be classified as a subspecies, UNLESS one of them actually is the race that all the others came from, then in that case, it would simply be "Homo sapiens". I don't think that this would be the case though.

Many make the mistake to think that 'More evolved' mean a superior, better organism. The term is meant in a quantitative, not qualitative context. A more evolved organism would be one that has undergone more change from its ancestors. In this case, whichever race has undergone the greatest morphological and genetic change from our parent species or subspecies, would be the more evolved. Whether this mean that this race is 'better' is purely a subjective opinion.

The beings surrounding you you doubt are superior to say, Homo Erectus?


In response to the question that I have quoted, the other races would have to be classified as a subspecies, UNLESS one of them actually is the race that all the others came from, then in that case, it would simply be "Homo sapiens". I don't think that this would be the case though.

The africans are Homo Sapiens. Considering variation within the European genome (mixes excluded), the farthest removed from the original root might well give the rest of the Europeans the designation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, though obviously not all would be.