howcomes humans are the only species with this amount of random genetics and mutations, types?

howcomes if you look at 5000, fish/dear/elephants/horses/lions/bears etc from the same region, look at them and all the adult males will roughly be the same size and look near exact in appearance, but then gather 5000 humans from the same region and asses them, there will be mass differences even if they are all of the same native origin and culture, they will all look different and there will be extream differences that you wouldent see in the wild, why is this?



peace

No, it just looks that way to us because it is our species. Bias and all that.

Humans travel more widely because of our technology and give the gene pool a thorough stirring. Go back to the time before horses were domesticated as draft animals in any region, and you'll find that almost all of the people in any one community look as similar as your fish.

yeah good points but i dont agree fully, i still think we are to diverse to be just a single species, look at 1 million adult salmon then look at 1 million adult humans, see the difference?



peace

Look into entomology... Namely, Kinsey and his ants. Members of the same species do vary. It's just not always noticeable to lay people.

As for size, non-human animals compete for survival, and the runts will either be killed or will be too weak to reproduce. Of course, civilized societies of humans do not engage in such [killing] practices.

Interesting question, and I'm really not sure. I do know that the amount of DNA in an organism does not correlate to its complexity, but I also agree that its no coincidence that fish/bears/frogs etc. all look almost identical. Perhaps humans simply have a larger percentage of total DNA that corresponds to phenotypical proteins???

Interesting question, and I'm really not sure. I do know that the amount of DNA in an organism does not correlate to its complexity, but I also agree that its no coincidence that fish/bears/frogs etc. all look almost identical. Perhaps humans simply have a larger percentage of total DNA that corresponds to phenotypical proteins???
This is all wrong. We are a young species and as a result have little diversity compared to other animals. http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih1/genetic/guide/genetic_variation1.htm <B>How Much Genetic Variation Exists Among Humans?</B>
Homo sapiens is a relatively young species and has not had as much time to accumulate genetic variation as have the vast majority of species on earth, most of which predate humans by enormous expanses of time.

In comparison to humans, look at the amazing diversity in dogs, <I>canis familiaris</I>, which range in size from Chihauhuas to mastiffs. Take another look at bears. They do not look alike. The European brown bear, the North American grizzly, and the humongous Kodiak bear are all from the same species, <I>Ursos arctos</I>.

...In comparison to humans, look at the amazing diversity in dogs, <I>canis familiaris</I>, which range in size from Chihauhuas to mastiffs. Take another look at bears. They do not look alike. The European brown bear, the North American grizzly, and the humongous Kodiak bear are all from the same species, <I>Ursos arctos</I>.I am not well versed in this area, so I will agree about bears, but the great variaty of dogs is surely man made and relatively recent (AD only I bet except for a few in ancient china etc.) I suspect that the diversity of the human gene pool is going down as more differnt groups mingle in this modern age. Perhaps it all depends upon how diversity is defined. If by the number of different combinations that exist, then yes the diversity is way up with the population increased, but some how that does not fit my idea of diversity. I tend to think of it more as how much any randomly chosen individual is likely to differ from the average, and that I bet is going down. What is the definition?

I am not well versed in this area, so I will agree about bears, but the great variaty of dogs is surely man made and relatively recent (AD only I bet except for a few in ancient china etc.) I suspect that the diversity of the human gene pool is going down as more differnt groups mingle in this modern age. Perhaps it all depends upon how diversity is defined. If by the number of different combinations that exist, then yes the diversity is way up with the population increased, but some how that does not fit my idea of diversity. I tend to think of it more as how much any randomly chosen individual is likely to differ from the average, and that I bet is going down. What is the definition?




i dont agree your speaking of different breeds of dogs, ok if you compare a tribe of 50 men all the same (breed) you get variations like fat slim tall short, hairy hairless, and all kinds of variation, if you look at 50 bulldogs, or 50 other dogs of same gender and breed they all look the same basicaly.


peace

This is all wrong. We are a young species and as a result have little diversity compared to other animals. http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih1/genetic/guide/genetic_variation1.htm

In comparison to humans, look at the amazing diversity in dogs, <I>canis familiaris</I>, which range in size from Chihauhuas to mastiffs. Take another look at bears. They do not look alike. The European brown bear, the North American grizzly, and the humongous Kodiak bear are all from the same species, <I>Ursos arctos</I>.



i ment to quote this post not the one from billy T im sorry my mistake.


peace

Today, giants and dwarfs are just a forgotten page in the history.

thats theory we dont know how they died out.

peace

howcomes humans are the only species with this amount of random genetics and mutations, types?

howcomes if you look at 5000, fish/dear/elephants/horses/lions/bears etc from the same region, look at them and all the adult males will roughly be the same size and look near exact in appearance, but then gather 5000 humans from the same region and asses them, there will be mass differences even if they are all of the same native origin and culture, they will all look different and there will be extream differences that you wouldent see in the wild, why is this?No, you are definitely all wrong. Look how close chimpanzees are to humans, and Neanderthals were to present day humans. Chimps and homo sapiens are genetically very close. And then all those other primates.

Then if you consider fish, their "genetic and mutation" diversity surpasses us by far! There are lampreys, teleosts (20,000 species), sharks, cartilaginous fish, bony fish; and lung fish and coelelacanths that are argued to be direct descendants of tetrapods and then humans.

valich,
You are talking about all fish and comparing it to humans, a single species of primate.
Compare fish to mammals, and it is a fair comparison.

Of course not! I am simply replying to the initial post;
"if you look at 5000, fish/dear/elephants/horses/lions/bears etc from the same region, look at them and all the adult males will roughly be the same size and look."
I'm just assuming he means 5000 different fish species, but in any case, I'm still setting the record straight and putting the thread on a more direct knowledgeable course, don't you think?

I wish I could answer that.
Scientists tell us that "race" is a misconception and we are all simply the same species, right?
D H said:
Take another look at bears. They do not look alike. The European brown bear, the North American grizzly, and the humongous Kodiak bear are all from the same species, Ursos arctos.
So, tell me...
If Ursos arctos is the species, then what is the North American Grizzly? Is that a sub-species? What defines "species"? I thought a species was defined by mating and reproducing. If a Grizzly and a Kodiak can have a kid, that means they are one species, correct?
If that is true, why do we define the difference (scientifically, not socially) between the Grizzly and the Kodiak, but not the African Human and the Asian Human?

What EmptyForceOfChi seemed to be saying to me was:
Look at this Grizzly and THAT Grizzly...
Yes, there are obviously differences in maxo-facial structure and other subtle differences (such as markings). And Yes, another Grizzly can tell Bill Bear from Bob Bear.
Now, look at Kareem Abdul Jabarr and Bruce Lee.
The differences are much more merked and obvious, and not simply because we are human.

Now all these people are telling him that he is wrong, and he very well may be, but none have really told him clearly why.

People brought up dogs and the vast difference between the Chihuahua and the Mastiff, for example.
However, look from one Mastiff to the next, and again, you will not see the wide difference between Jabarr and Lee.
So, explin, in clear and certain terms, why that is.
Dogs can cross-breed, so they are one species, just like humans, right?
So why are there different breeds of dogs, yet scientists continually tell us that there are no "human breeds".

thats theory we dont know how they died out.

Yes we do know. They died out because they chose to stop reproducing among themselves. They were very different from our human race. They were very wise and loveful people, they knew everything. They didn't have much technology, they didn't need it. They lived in harmony with nature and themselves, and they knew that there was only one self.

Life on earth is under constant change, at some point, the change becomes apparent. So, when there were only a few ancients left, there lived another, very primitive human race. The ancients led the primitive people to higher truths, away from ignorance and suffering. They were kings. That's why the king is always chosen from the same family, since they had "royal" blood in their veins, but of course, it is not true anymore. Things have balanced out. Because people are egoistic, they have created several "religions" of their teachings..

Before they left the earth to go to the unconscious, they needed to give their legacy, their wisdom and blood to the primitive humans (so that we could also become free, after a long long time), so the males of the ancient race had children with the females of the primitive race. That way, our human race was born. In the beginning, these 'hybrids' were all very different from each other. Some were very wise, while others were dumb and evil. Then there were also those who inherited both the "magical knowledge" and the egoistic mind from the primitive human side. They caused much evil to others and themselves. But there were also good "witches".

This is a broad subject.

c7ityi_,
Would it be foolish of me to ask for some references regarding this, or inquire to how you came to this knowledge?

There are lampreys, teleosts (20,000 species), sharks, cartilaginous fish, bony fish; and lung fish and coelelacanths that are argued to be direct descendants of tetrapods and then humans.

haha...

Anyhoo...

Chimp's faces all look rather distinct.

And there are regional differences between chimps.

And split offs such as bonobos which do not only look different in posture and face but also show different behaviour.

All wild species need to be a certain way to survive.
Nothing other than the ideal will cut it, so a streamlined ideal phenotype prevails.
Look at the primitive tribes, each individual will look pretty similar.
Today humans have bred out in all directions, like dogs, so there's that huge variation.
Also in a city you'll get types of human from many different places.
Seperate populations of tiger look different too.

There is also just more kinds of human. Even despite all of what I'm saying there is more variation.
This can be attributed to the human species being extremely adaptable. Where other genetic strains have been forced to change into different species, the human species only had to change slightly to suit different environments. It didn't have to go so far as to change into another species, the human species could find a way to survive everywhere it went, with only slight modifications. These modifications made the different populations look different, and yes become slightly different in many unseen ways, but they essentially didn't change all that much because they didn't need to.

It's not some magic part of being human, if you look at a tribe in sudan or papua new guinea you'll notice all the individual specimens will be nearly identical, in the same way leopards or baboons are.

I have no idea of who you are talking to or what you are talking about.

Current debate amongst paleontoligists centers around whether the ancestrial descendants of lung fish or coelelacanths are the true descendants to tetrapods. They both have their pros and cons. Do you ever read any scientific journals? What are you talking about???

they are their ancestors moron.

Chimpanzee DNA is 98.5 percent identical to humans yet look how diverse they are in physical appearance, mental ability, and their environmental habitat.

Dah! Because I'm extremely busy, it's imperative that I type fast! Are you admitting that you're such a "moron" that you didn't in any way understand what I posted??? So trivial! Am I submitting a doctoral dissertation or a scientific article for publication? Let one person reply who didn't understand what I meant except for you. AND, if they do I will graciously take the time on my behalf to clear up any confusion. And you? GET A LIFE!

You did it twice.

Statistical analysis shows that you would be very unlucky to do so.

Furthermore, You would have recognized your mistake if you had any brain.

Dogs can cross-breed, so they are one species, just like humans, right? So why are there different breeds of dogs, yet scientists continually tell us that there are no "human breeds".The ability to crossbreed defines a genus, not a species. Donkeys can crossbreed with horses or zebras. Macaws can all crossbreed with each other. Coyotes can crossbreed with wolves. They're all different species but each set is within one genus.

Nonetheless there are different breeds of dogs, but only in domestication. The reason is that their reproduction is managed by humans so that the gene pools are kept distinct. AKC- or some other kennel club-registered cocker spaniels have been bred only to other registered cocker spaniels for a hundred generations, and before kennel clubs they were just as carefully bred by their fanciers for a couple of hundred more generations. They've recently done exhaustive tests of dog DNA. The DNA of a mastiff differs from the DNA of a chihuahua more than the DNA of an average mutt differs from the DNA of a wolf.

In fact, this research proved that dogs and wolves are actually a single species. The wolf is merely one breed of dog: the original.

Anyway, no one "manages" human DNA. During the Mesolithic Era, after humans first migrated out of Africa, the various populations remained separated by geography for thousands of years so their gene pools had a chance to diverge, but only through mutation rather than selective breeding. The "caucasoid," "negroid," and "mongoloid" "races" developed a few distinct traits due to survival of the fittest (variation of melatonin pigment in skin with latitude) and mutation (the epicanthic eye fold that the Asian "mongoloids" developed after their cousins walked across the Bering Land Bridge into our hemisphere).

That's just about the extent of the difference between the human "races," and they started to disappear as soon as we domesticated horses, traveling more extensively, and mixing up our formerly separated populations. The differences have been vanishing ever more quickly since the advent of even faster modes of transportation such as sailing ships, trains, and jet airliners. The average sub-Saharan African is still noticeably darker than the average inhabitant of Scandinavia, but both populations have much greater ranges of skin color than they did 3,000 years ago. In Brazil human skin color covers the entire spectrum from "black" to "white" in an even continuum.

The reason there are "breeds" of dogs is that humans have been "breeding" them for about 7,000 years. (Mastiffs, Lhasa Apsos, and several other breeds go back that far.) The reason there are no "breeds" of humans is that no one has been "breeding" us.

Thank you for you clear and succinct explanation, Fraggle.
That's what I was looking for.

The ability to crossbreed defines a genus, not a species. Donkeys can crossbreed with horses or zebras. Macaws can all crossbreed with each other. Coyotes can crossbreed with wolves. They're all different species but each set is within one genus....I too thank you, but I have a question:

I can not give the reference, but I have read that there is an artic bird found all the way round the artic circle, which can breed with its slightly differ "race" neighbors, except those on the two sides of the Bering straits can not breed. That is, those that live in North Norway breed just fine with those living a little to the East. Those in Western Russia breed with those in North central Russia etc. These birds do not normally travel very far from their birth spot. Are they one "species" or two "genus"? Or is not even this division possible in all cases?

The ability to crossbreed defines a genus, not a species. Donkeys can crossbreed with horses or zebras.

Not successfully. A donkey-horse cross is a mule or a jenny (depending on which is the father and which is the mother). Mules and jennies are sterile. The ability to crossbreed <i>successfully</i> (<i>i.e.</i>, produce fertile offspring) is one of the defining characteristics of a <i>species</i>. What about dogs, coyotes, wolves, and jackals? They are classified as different species that create fertile offspring. Breeding true is another defining characteristic of a species. Dogs/coyotes/wolves/jackals usually make war, not love, when they cross paths.

I can not give the reference, but I have read that there is an artic bird found all the way round the artic circle, which can breed with its slightly differ "race" neighbors, except those on the two sides of the Bering straits can not breed. That is, those that live in North Norway breed just fine with those living a little to the East. Those in Western Russia breed with those in North central Russia etc. These birds do not normally travel very far from their birth spot. Are they one "species" or two "genus"? Or is not even this division possible in all cases?

First, a correction. Species is more specific than genus. So the birds might be from two different species but are uncertainly still in the same genus.

The bird you are talking is an example of a "ring species". For example, Ring Species: Salamanders (www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html):Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.

One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.