1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Acceptable words/phrases

Discussion in 'Personal' started by EmanuelShadrack, May 10, 2019.

  1. les25paul

    les25paul Star commenter

    @dunnocks

    I'm still not convinced on your claim that modern humans and Neanderthals are the same species. And after some digging into this fascinating subject can offer the following evidence to suggest we are not.

    https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/who-were-the-neanderthals.html

    Whilst I can except this isn't a scientific paper we must agree that the Natural History Museum and Prof Chris Stringer are credible sources. In this article the professor says Neanderthal is a distinct species (nice to have a Prof agree with me :)) but that we have a common ancestor. That could explain why we share some DNA but thats just my theory (and I'll keep the Prof in the picture :D).

    I couldn't find a date to this article so it might be superseded by more recent developments. I would be interested if you have a link to show this.
     
  2. les25paul

    les25paul Star commenter

    The book is almost 100 years old and the language used very blunt/matter of fact which would need some diplomacy to make it more acceptable to many modern readers.

    But it also be foolish to deny there are some morphological differences between groups of humans from different regions. Of course events happening just after this classification make it very uncomfortable but conversely I think its important to recognise and celebrate human variations.

    Interestingly I remember reading somewhere (but forgot where) a human evolutionist believes that as people move around the World more and different populations mix these differences will become less and less naturally until we all look the same. That will be a shame.
     
  3. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    The races have existed for much longer:rolleyes:
    Can you have up to date races? Do they change in 100 years?
    So many questions.:confused:
     
  4. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    yes, I've got more up to date information, I'll send it to you, but it probably won't be before next week.
     
    les25paul likes this.
  5. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Interesting article in New Scientist this week about the scientific evidence (or lack of) for the existence of race.

    It posits it is a cultural and linguistic feature...a social construct.
     
    Mangleworzle and les25paul like this.
  6. les25paul

    les25paul Star commenter

    It does look interesting, but I could only read the free "taster" on their website. I might have to stick my hand in my pocket and shell out to buy, :eek:, a copy for the full article.
     
    lanokia likes this.
  7. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    A racist viewpoint.
     
  8. blazer

    blazer Star commenter

    Well Queer became Gay but now I think Queer has made a comeback.
     
  9. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    It used to mean something quite different.
     
    blazer likes this.
  10. Aquamarina1234

    Aquamarina1234 Star commenter

    If Homo sapiens and Neanderthals managed to interbreed, then by the very definition of the word, they are not two different species.
     
  11. les25paul

    les25paul Star commenter

    Not really, many different species can interbreed and produce young. But the young will be infertile and we have no way of knowing (or will ever have a way of knowing) if relationships between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals produced fertile children.

    But the definition of what makes a species is less clear cut. A new species will form when a separate population becomes isolated and there is little or no exchange of DNA with other members of that species until eventually there is a significant difference in genetic make up and interbreeding does not produce fertile offspring.

    But this will take many generations during which the emerging species remain closely related and to some degree always will. When a new species finally emerges is not always obvious. There is no disputing Homo sapiens and Neanderthals are closely related but currently the common view is that they are not the same species. Scientists are currently mapping the Neanderthal genome, when thats done the current opinion might change,

    In the meanwhile and as the climate warms polar and grizzly bears are interbeeding in the wild and producing young. Some scientists suggest that these off spring might be fertile and a new species is on its way. No one has been brave enough to find out yet.
     
  12. Aquamarina1234

    Aquamarina1234 Star commenter

    Ooo interesting!

    "On 8 April 2010, David Kuptana, an Inuvialuit hunter from the community of Ulukhaktok on Victoria Island shot what he thought was a polar bear. After inspecting the bear and having its DNA tested, it was discovered that the bear's mother was a grizzly-polar hybrid and the father was a grizzly bear. The bear possesses physical characteristics intermediate between grizzlies and polar bears, such as brown fur on its paws, long claws, and a grizzly-like head.

    Between 2012 and 2014 another six hybrid bears were either killed by hunters or live-captured by biologists. Samples were collected from all six, and genetic analysis confirmed both their hybrid status and their family relationships.[3] The eight hybrids identified to date include four first generation (F1, 50:50) and four grizzly bear backcross individuals (75:25 grizzly:polar bear). A single F1 female was the mother of all four backcross individuals, and a single female polar bear was the mother of all four F1s, and thus the grandmother of all four backcross bears. Two male grizzlies mated with the female polar bear to give rise to the four F1s, with one grizzly bear apparently mating with the polar bear in two different years (two of the F1s are full siblings, but born three years apart). The same two male brown bears both mated with the F1 female to produce the four backcross individuals, with three litter mates being sired by one male and a single, older 3/4 grizzly bear coming from a mating between the F1 female and her father.

    It is hard to know whether these events are a harbinger of the breakdown of a species barrier, or just an unusual anecdote, since all confirmed cases to date trace to the unusual mate choice of a single polar bear.

    The genetic methods used to confirm the family relationships and ancestry of the hybrid bears from northern Canada date back to the early 1990s, and are not powerful enough to reveal ancient history. However, the newer methods of genomics analyze thousands of sites in the genome, allowing the history of individual fragments of chromosomes to be traced back to particular populations (or species in the case of hybridization). Genomics studies of brown bears and polar bears have revealed that gene flow from polar bears into brown bears — but not the other way around — was widespread in time and space during the Pleistocene.[7] Of particular note, the bears living on the islands of the Alexander Archipelago of southeast Alaska trace their maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA entirely to polar bears, but over 90% of their nuclear genome to brown bears. This appears to reflect a process in which a population of polar bears was left behind as the species retreated northwards at the end of the last ice age, with male brown bears subsequently introducing genes from the adjacent mainland, but female brown bears being generally unable or unwilling to swim across several km of open ocean to reach the islands (thus the lack of exchange of mitochondrial DNA).[22]

    Such studies have not been limited to polar bears and brown bears, and it now appears that gene flow between species has been widespread during the evolution of the living species of bears.[23]
    From wiki.

    Now to spend hours finding out more about it! I see the F1 hybrid female went on to produce offspring.
     
    les25paul likes this.
  13. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    How so?
     
  14. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    grizzly bears and polar bears have always interbred, and have long been considered likely the same species, the only difference between them is colour of fur.
     
  15. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    There is an article in the NewScientist this week, I haven't read all of it myself, but I'm told it is saying that there are no separate races in humanity, and the term "race" is 100% political, not in any way biological, when referring to humans. and is a legacy from some of the rather nastier 19th and 20th century politics.
     
  16. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Really? Would that be yet another convenient and media generated lie?
     
  17. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    I don't understand what this means? have you read the article? what do you think of it?
     

Share This Page