Hybrids and Humans

[Thurlor]

I've been reading a bit about various hybrids that exist in nature (liger, wolphin, pizzly bear, etc) which has raised a few questions.

Are hybrids considered to be a new species if they can breed true? Maybe an isolated population is required (not sure).

If a population of humans are found that don't have Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA would that mean they are a different species?
If they are a different species should the knowledge be hidden so as to not give extra fuel for racists (speciests?)?

I've always considered the comparison of races to breeds to be innacurate but this would be a whole new level of differentiation.

Would it be wrong for a non-hybrid human to class all hybrid humans as non-human? A liger is not a tiger or a lion.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

If they are a different species should the knowledge be hidden so as to not give extra fuel for racists (speciests?)?

wtf no?

 

[Cognisant]

You species is pretty much defined by who you can breed with, lions and tigers can breed but the offspring are usually sterile. If you get enough fertile ligers together to form a breeding population then congratulations you just created a new species.

The same is true of humans, since we're all genetically compatible we're all the same species but we do have the tech to make a genetically distinct derivative species if we wanted to.

 

[Rook]

I can easily imagine science-bred human hybrids.

Elephantine things with multiple organs grown in tanks, acting as donors.

Beings with gills/greatly enlarged external lungs used to terraform and cultivate oceans and lakes

Ratlike scramblers with cat eyes and bat ears, sent into mines.

Then one gets to cranial capacity and the question of A.I vs superhumans.

To be honest, we might need some wars. WII nations had ambitioosomes supermen, future wars might tealize this vision in dire times.

oh and @Thurlor , I think it was Sameul R. Lafferty who wrote a science fiction piece where humans opened a parralel dimension to an earth were Peking(?) man wiped out homo sapiens, with a humanoid race derived from them. The question you ask was posited in that piece: Are they human? I think it was lafferty.... or a female writer. Let me check.


***** Wow I was wrong, a crack in space by Phillip k. Dick. It contains a siamese brothel-spacestation owner.

 

[washti]

If a population of humans are found that don't have Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA would that mean they are a different species?

This is a biological classification problem.

We can assume that since homo sapiens sapiens has the DNA of archaic human species (H. sapiens, H. neanderthalensis, Denisovan) it is itself a hybrid.

However, since it is the only known living species of the genus Homo, it is pointless to define it in the present time as a hybrid.

The next issue is the weight prescriped to DNA percentage of other species, necessary to isolate a given group of individuals as a new species.

In the modern human genome, there is a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA (close to 0% in Africans and 1-2% in the Eurasian population) Denisovan DNA occurs in the Malaysian population (4-6%) in Aborigines and residual in Americans (0.2%)

Without Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA homo sapiens sapiens would be simply clean homo sapiens. So it'd be homo from the past. Not new one.

Chimpanzees share with us ~ 98% DNA, and they are not only a different species but also a different genus (Pan genus, not Homo). Though of course there is quarrel among scientists:

There is continuing debate on delineating Homo from Australopithecus—or, indeed, delineating Homo from Pan, as one body of scientists argue that the two species of chimpanzee should be classed with genus Homo rather than Pan. Even so, classifying the fossils of Homo coincides with evidences of: 1) competent human bipedalism in Homo habilis inherited from the earlier Australopithecus of more than four million years ago, (see Laetoli); and 2) human tool culture having begun by 2.5 million years ago.

Scientist use also other factors in deciding belongingness to Homo genus than genes.

 

[Thurlor]

Some interesting points have been raised.

I think the notion of species is somewhat malleable. And maybe the boundaries are a bit fuzzy (sometimes more so than others). For example ring species and the like.

 

[Cognisant]

We may be on the verge of genetic warfare, if you can make subtle modifications to people or just infants before they’re born you can over time create a society full of voters that will subconsciously respond to certain triggers. They may be instinctively submissive to someone who emits a certain pheromone, more inclined to listen to someone who speaks with a certain tone of voice, predisposed to find certain personality traits attractive, and if you know what these biases are you can set up candidates who will appeal to these voters on an instinctual level.

 

[sushi]

its already discussed in the morality of frankeinstein and genetics thread.

 

[scorpiomover]

Are hybrids considered to be a new species if they can breed true?

Historical descriptions of hybrids specify when the hybrids are infertile, indicating that the majority of hybrids can breed.

If a population of humans are found that don't have Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA would that mean they are a different species?

I've read that humans are 50% lettuce.

If they are a different species should the knowledge be hidden so as to not give extra fuel for racists (speciests?)?

During the Hundred Years' War, the British and French were almost permanently at war. At the time, the kings of Britain and France were the same religion, and part of the same family (they married each other) and part of the same nobility (the kings of Britain were Normans, who also ruled Normandy in France).

I've always considered the comparison of races to breeds to be innacurate but this would be a whole new level of differentiation.

From what I read recently, there are so many European genes in Africans and so many African genes in Europeans, etc, that the notion of race amongst humans isn't even viable.

Would it be wrong for a non-hybrid human to class all hybrid humans as non-human? A liger is not a tiger or a lion.

If you said that biochemistry is basically part of chemistry, and should not be considered a subject in its own right, would biochemists agree?

 

[QuickTwist]

We may be on the verge of genetic warfare, if you can make subtle modifications to people or just infants before they’re born you can over time create a society full of voters that will subconsciously respond to certain triggers. They may be instinctively submissive to someone who emits a certain pheromone, more inclined to listen to someone who speaks with a certain tone of voice, predisposed to find certain personality traits attractive, and if you know what these biases are you can set up candidates who will appeal to these voters on an instinctual level.

No need. Facebook.

 

[Anling]

Species boundaries are very debated. There are splitters and lumpers and it is especially difficult to determine for fossils since we can't study their actual behavior and life cycles. There is a lot of debate whether certain dinosaur species are actually just juveniles of other species. Besides the genetic compatibility, there is the question of if, left to their own devices, the species would breed. Ligers don't occur in the wild, even where lion and tiger ranges overlap. Other species are different, but interbreed enough to be troublesome, like polar bears and grizzlies, or barred owls and spotted owls.

There is also a debate over whether red wolves are actually a hybrid of wolves and coyotes that developed a large breeding population instead of actually being their own species. So if a hybrid population gets large enough to become its own breeding population, then, yes, it can be considered its own species practically.

As far as humans go, there were hybrids, but they bred back into our population. I don't think such little admixture can qualify us as hybrids. We didn't end up with a separate neanderthal/human population.