https://www.rawstory.com/2018/08/saga-ea...ies-child/

Quote:Saga of early humans etched in DNA of mixed-species child

Quote:Denny was an inter-species love child.

Her mother was a Neanderthal, but her father was Denisovan, a distinct species of primitive human that also roamed the Eurasian continent 50,000 years ago, scientists reported Wednesday in the journal Nature.

Somehow the inerrant bible missed this chapter!

Well, a Day is whatever we want it to mean. Take Morris Day, for example, a man who always had The Time.

(August 23, 2018 at 11:33 am)Minimalist Wrote:

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/08/saga-ea...ies-child/

Quote:Saga of early humans etched in DNA of mixed-species child

Quote:Denny was an inter-species love child.

Her mother was a Neanderthal, but her father was Denisovan, a distinct species of primitive human that also roamed the Eurasian continent 50,000 years ago, scientists reported Wednesday in the journal Nature.

Somehow the inerrant bible missed this chapter!

The crapinists will argue, "But I thought you said separate species cant mate"?

Um no, that is not what evolution says. As long as the genes are close enough in DNA they can, but once the shuffling creates too much difference the species will not be able to mate.

Morons will claim we are advocating fucking monkeys, but no. It is no different than knowing that humans cross breed plants all the time and create new species.

You cannot today, fuck a baboon as a human and make a baby, because our genes are too far removed. But in this case in your story the separate but still homo line was still close enough at that point.

Evolution is as simple as knowing that grass and trees while not the same species, are closer related than they are to humans. Just like domestic house cats and big cats like tigers and lions are still called cats.

It still proves that all life shares DNA. 

It bothers theists that they cant stand that humans are not the apex of life. They cannot stand that we are simply one form of what DNA churns out over millions of years.

The term "species" needs to be re-defined or at least needs to be used less than it is.

The Innuit

 

don't look anything like the Dinka tribe of Sudan



and they sure as shit don't look like the Swedish Bikini Team.



But they are all homo sapiens.

(August 23, 2018 at 11:57 am)Minimalist Wrote: The term "species" needs to be re-defined or at least needs to be used less than it is.

The Innuit

 

don't look anything like the Dinka tribe of Sudan



and they sure as shit don't look like the Swedish Bikini Team.



But they are all homo sapiens.

I wouldn't put it that way. Those groups you posted pictures of, between men and women could still mate and have babies, so the DNA is still similar enough to do so.

But yea, if evolution did not occur, even within the same species you would not have different looks like you have posted. I don't think however we need to re define the word species. I think it is a solid scientific word as it is.

(August 23, 2018 at 11:57 am)Minimalist Wrote: and they sure as shit don't look like the Swedish Bikini Team.



But they are all homo sapiens.

bikini team?

Do they just go around looking good in bikinis?

Is anything else required?

They're all homo sapiens sapiens.  We're a subspecies.  The Doubly Wise, a misnomer if ever there were one, lol.  Current data suggests that homo sapiens neanderthalenthis and denosova were also a subspecies.

(there are, ofc, taxonomic classifications under subspecies as well..and these account for difference within the sbsp - as time goes on...lol..well need to start adding extra rungs to the bottom of the ladder)

The classification of species needs some work. Just because two populations can occasionally mate and produce fertile offspring does’t mean they are always classified as the same specie. If there are limits to their ability to produce fertile offspring - for example only offspring of one sex can be fertile and the other usually sterile, or the offspring can occasionally be fertile but most often are not, or even if the offsprings are fertile but only with one of the two parent populations, then the parent populations would usually not be classified as the same species.

How readily different populations of archaic humans can interbreed and produce offsprings is AFAIK not well known, All we know is it can happen. But how readily that can happen has a lot to say about whether they are the same species.

Ah the mule. A sturdy animal, but locked out of breeding due to infertility. At some point a species seperated by time or space will not bear viable offspring, e.g. able to reproduce itself.

Still a mule is a good animal. Grandad had one that died of old age. Born of an ass climbing up a maer. Shit, that would require some leverage.