Human "species"

[James R]

recidivist:

That's because you are adhering to politically correct ideas of what the word human means.

There's nothing politically correct about using the standard definition of the term "species" that is used by all biologists, unless you regard any adherence to convention as political correctness.

Are you saying there are humans who are not people?

Yes. For example, if you're brain dead, you're still human, but you're no longer a person in the technical sense of that term.

Are you saying there are humans who are not homo sapien?

No. Homo sapiens is just the Latin name for the species "human being". The two are synonymous.

How do you define the term hominid?

How do you define it? And why does it matter?

If [Darwin] was racist, he must also have been speciest, but there is no evidence he was.

I'm not sure how one thing must follow from the other. Also, I'm not sure how you define speciesist. But again, let's suppose that you're right. So what if Darwin was racist and speciesist? What turns on that?

He simply viewed humanity with the same objective detatchment he viewed other animals. That his opinions have become unfashionable has nothing to do with their validity.

You mean like the reality of evolution? I agree with you, then. Just because you think evolution is unfashionable, it doesn't mean it isn't real.

What on earth would it mean for evolution to "go into reverse". What is "forwards" for evolution? As far as I am aware, evolution doesn't have a direction.

I would say millions of years of fossilized evidence contradict you.

Then tell me what the direction of evolution is, and what it would look like if evolution went "in reverse"? And how could it go in reverse, anyway?

Rights are state sanctioned propaganda; they don't exist in nature.

Human culture is part of nature, so rights do exist in nature.

It beggars belief that you believe in something which is plainly a social construct whilst simultaneously denying that human evolution has a direction which is clearly visible in the fossil record.

What's the direction then, and how can I see it in the fossils?

Aren't identical twins clones?

No, they're identical twins.

How does an identical twin differ from a clone?

It's kind of hard to talk about the relationships between things when they are in a state of perpetual, directionless chaos, as you claim human evolution is.

I've made no such claim.

I've lost track of what you're arguing. Do you know what you're arguing, and can you sum it up for me? Your posts come across as a fairly undirected scattergun barrage.

[recidivist]

There's nothing politically correct about using the standard definition of the term "species" that is used by all biologists, unless you regard any adherence to convention as political correctness.

'Human' is not a species classification:

Human - Definition

noun, plural: humans: A bipedal primate belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo sapiens.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human

Yes. For example, if you're brain dead, you're still human, but you're no longer a person in the technical sense of that term.

How do you tell which corpses are or are not human?

You mean like the reality of evolution? I agree with you, then. Just because you think evolution is unfashionable, it doesn't mean it isn't real.

I have not argued that evolution is a fiction, only that it is hypocritically applied selectively when it comes to hominids by liberals.

Then tell me what the direction of evolution is, and what it would look like if evolution went "in reverse"? And how could it go in reverse, anyway?

Are we regressing back to monkeys JamesR? Are you aware we share common ancestry with chimpanzees? I think the fossil record is quite clear on the direction evolution has taken and continues to take. The dinosaurs are not coming back.

Human culture is part of nature, so rights do exist in nature.

If human culture is part of nature - and assuming that nature is a measurable, physical phenomena - why do different groups of humans have different cultures?

How does an identical twin differ from a clone?

The differences are subtle, but a clone is a carbon copy, an identical twin not so.

[Bells]

I have not argued that evolution is a fiction, only that it is hypocritically applied selectively when it comes to hominids by liberals.

WOW!

Just..

WOW..

Did you just say what I think you just said?

[iceaura]

'Human' is not a species classification:

Human - Definition

noun, plural: humans: A bipedal primate belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo sapiens.

As there is only one species extant in that genus, "human" is a species classification. In fact.

Your original agenda is now clear, btw - no need to be coy. Let's have the stupid right out on the screen, where we can deal with it.

[recidivist]

WOW!

Just..

WOW..

Did you just say what I think you just said?

No need for the theatrics, what do you think I said?

[recidivist]

As there is only one species extant in that genus, "human" is a species classification. In fact.

Homo sapien?

As I've already posted, homo sapien is latin for man of knowledge.

Please define what you mean by species in that context.

Your original agenda is now clear, btw - no need to be coy. Let's have the stupid right out on the screen, where we can deal with it.

Do you have something to add to this debate?

[arauca]

WOW!

Just..

WOW..

Did you just say what I think you just said?

Bell are you a geneticist , biologist or just a bell, If you are not one of those , then your thoughts are just bell tones and you should , keep your thoughts to your self.

[recidivist]

Bell are you a geneticist , biologist or just a bell, If you are not one of those , then your thoughts are just bell tones and you should , keep your thoughts to your self.

They are more like the echoes of an empty head.

One can only blame oneself for failing to understand them.

[origin]

Homo sapien?

As I've already posted, homo sapien is latin for man of knowledge.

Please define what you mean by species in that context.

Uh are you serious? We are a mammal species named homo sapien sapien and the latin to english translation of that is roughly 'man of wisdom'.

[recidivist]

Uh are you serious? We are a mammal species named homo sapien sapien and the latin to english translation of that is roughly 'man of wisdom'.

Sorry, are you quibbling about the translation or do you have a point to make?

[Bells]

No need for the theatrics, what do you think I said?

I think when taken in context with everything else you have been saying in this thread, it is quite clear.

Unless of course you mean it differently?

Bell are you a geneticist , biologist or just a bell, If you are not one of those , then your thoughts are just bell tones and you should , keep your thoughts to your self.

Arauca, are you 5 years of age?

[Trippy]

Homo sapien?

As I've already posted, homo sapien is latin for man of knowledge.

Please define what you mean by species in that context.

If only there was a book that contained words and their definitions as agreed upon by the speakers of a given language...

ex·tant adj \ˈek-stənt; ek-ˈstant, ˈek-ˌ\
1: archaic : standing out or above
2a : currently or actually existing <the most charming writer extant — G. W. Johnson>
b : still existing : not destroyed or lost <extant manuscripts>
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Extant

spe·cies noun \ˈspē-(ˌ)shēz, -(ˌ)sēz\
1a : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of the genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name
b : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Species

Additionaly, we have this:

Human - Definition

noun, plural: humans: A bipedal primate belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo sapiens.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human

So then the statement "As there is only one species extant in that genus, "human" is a species classification. In fact."
Then becomes: There is only one taxon of related organisms or populations within the genus Homo that is still existing and potentialy capable of interbreeding. So in the context of this discussion which relates to modern humans, the use of the phrase 'human' which by definition refers to the genus Homo, also neccesarily refers to Homo sapiens and encompasses all individuals regardless of which population within Homo sapiens they belong to as all populations of Homo sapiens are capable of interbreeding regardless of their geographical distribution.

[arauca]

They are more like the echoes of an empty head.

One can only blame oneself for failing to understand them.

They are a mafia that gang up on an poster with different ideas , then punish him to submit to their thought , if the poster does not submit they find a way to ban him . So be careful especially of thinker Bell comes into the discussion . I have the impression he does not have a science background. See the posts he initiate

[spidergoat]

Arauca, are you 5 years of age?

I have often wondered the same.

[recidivist]

Arauca, are you 5 years of age?

I think that question should be asked of you.

Decades of affirmative action have done a lot of damage.

If only there was a book that contained words and their definitions as agreed upon by the speakers of a given language...

You mean if only there was a book containing unchanging definitions of a static, unchanging universe agreed upon be everyone. Get yourself a Qur'an or Bible if you're that afraid of reality.

spe·cies noun \ˈspē-(ˌ)shēz, -(ˌ)sēz\
1a : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding,

Is that clear enough for you?

What criteria are you using for determining which populations are capable of interbreeding with others or not?

Again I will ask you as I asked JamesR, how do you determine from physical remains who is human or not, who could interbreed with whom?

also neccesarily refers to Homo sapiens and encompasses all individuals regardless of which population within Homo sapiens they belong to as all populations of Homo sapiens are capable of interbreeding regardless of their geographical distribution.

The give away is the word 'individuals'. This is clearly a politically motivated definition. Not surprisingly it reflects the values and goals of a certain well known political document entitled the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Seeing the world as a collection of individuals is the ideology of liberal capitalism. It is not objective science.

[Trippy]

You mean if only there was a book containing unchanging definitions of a static, unchanging universe agreed upon be everyone. Get yourself a Qur'an or Bible if you're that afraid of reality.

Troll.

Is that clear enough for you?

What criteria are you using for determining which populations are capable of interbreeding with others or not?

Among living populations it's pretty trivial.
Even among the dead it's still pretty trivial.

Again I will ask you as I asked JamesR, how do you determine from physical remains who is human or not, who could interbreed with whom?

There's a couple of different ways. DNA is one example. And there's these things called descriptions that allow paleontologists to determine whether or not remains belong to the same species.

The give away is the word 'individuals'. This is clearly a politically motivated definition. Not surprisingly it reflects the values and goals of a certain well known political document entitled the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Seeing the world as a collection of individuals is the ideology of liberal capitalism. It is not objective science.

And this is what happens when Trolls cherry pick.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

My favorite denial of evolution is how atheists willfully misrepresent Darwin's views on race, even to the point of blindly twisting the meaning of what he wrote into something else.

But it's the same old story. Cowards only accept what makes them comfortable and has been sanctioned by state institutions. Whether that's a church authority or secular government makes no difference.

The give away is the word 'individuals'. This is clearly a politically motivated definition. Not surprisingly it reflects the values and goals of a certain well known political document entitled the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Seeing the world as a collection of individuals is the ideology of liberal capitalism. It is not objective science.

Mod note: Your first and last posts are nice bookends to highlight your real intent. And it’s gone far enough. I don’t like racist trolls. As a general trend I ban them, especially ones who try to subvert science as a justification. Thread closed.