Where do new species come from over time, then? You seem to be saying that there is a time when they are all variants of the same species…and then…bam! Different species.
Ok: dogs and wolves (and coyotes) Different species, can interbreed. Genetics is complicated. Definition of species as a human concept is complicated. Speciation is complicated, fuzzy, can happen on and off depending on the mutation involved genes and there can remain bridge individuals that are variants who can breed between separate species. 😬
If humans interbred and produced fertile offspring with “superarchiac” hominds, then they were the same species the whole time and never truly differentiated.
If modern dogs can interbreed and produced fertile offspring with wolves, then they were the same species the whole time and never truly differentiated.
I hope I taught you something
You don’t even know the scientific definition of “species”…
species, in biology, classification comprising related organisms that share common characteristics and are capable of interbreeding.
reductive definition of species that predates genetics.
Literally the opposite…
I’m going to quote a lot you probably won’t read from the above link, but at the bottom I’ll bold the bit that says you’re operated on flawed historical assumptions that predate DNA. Stuff that used morphology (what something looks like) because that’s all we could do
First off, you’re not understanding what a subspecies is, so quoting that bit:
Subspecies are groups at the first stage of speciation; individuals of different subspecies sometimes interbreed, but they produce many sterile male offspring. At the second stage are incipient species, or semispecies; individuals of these groups rarely interbreed, and all their male offspring are sterile. Natural selection separates incipient species into sibling species, which do not mate at all but which in morphology, or structure and form, are nearly indistinguishable. Sibling species then evolve into morphologically (and taxonomically) different species. Because it is often difficult to distinguish between subspecies and stable species, another criterion has been developed that involves a historical, or phylogenetic, dimension. In this form, a species is separated from another when there is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent.
Fourteen species of Galapagos finches that evolved from a common ancestor. The different shapes of their bills, suited to different diets and habitats, show the process of adaptive radiation.
Speciation may occur in many ways. A population may become geographically separated from the rest of its species and never be rejoined. Through the process of adaptive radiation, this population might evolve independently into a new species, changing to fit particular ecological niches in the new environment and never requiring natural selection to complete its reproductive isolation from the parent species. Within the new environment, populations of the new species might then radiate into species themselves. A famous example of adaptive radiation is that of the Galapagos finches.
But here’s the part about genetic you got backwards:
There are many hypotheses about how speciation starts, and they differ mainly in the role of geographic isolation and the origin of reproductive isolation (the prevention of two populations or more from interbreeding with one another).
The evidence for speciation formerly was found in the fossil record by tracing successive changes in the morphology of organisms. Genetic studies now show that morphological change does not always accompany speciation, as many apparently identical groups are, in fact, reproductively isolated.
Like, it’s almost impressive that you managed to be so convinced of the opposite of the scientific consensus in every possible way…
Neanderthals and humans produced often/usually sterile offspring, though.
I never heard that, and I can’t even think of a way that evidence could show that…
We know that for whatever reason there’s less neaderthal on the X chromosome, but that doesn’t have anything to do with sterility of offspring at a high frequency.
It most likely was just that any mutation that did make it over, was outcompeted. Which comes back to the prevailing theory that “modern” humans main advantage was reproducing like bunnies, and that advantage was carried on our X chromosome.
That would mean the neanderthal DNA that was passed down and still around, came over from the crossing of male neanderthals with female humans to male sons. Which (going off memory) we do have evidence to support.
Those “hybrids” would have children with “human” X’s even if they were daughters, but be introducing neanderthal DNA back into a “double human X” mother, ensuring her daughter still had the reproductive advantages over a neanderthal mother still, but retaining neanderthal genes adaptive to the northern climate.
Shake and bake a couple generations, you get white people.
But at no point does it mean any “hybrid” was sterile, just that a thousand years later they didn’t have direct living descendants, an incredibly common thing especially back them.
Because we only had morphology to go off of, they were labelled a separate species.
However that was largely due to their harder lifestyle than genetics and with DNA testing they’re now recognized as a “sub species” which is why later waves of “modern” humans reabsorbed them into the gene pool so quickly, likely along with some neanderthal DNA as icing.
All I’m saying. Is that eventually the other “archaics” will get the same recognition as “siblings” on the family tree and not “cousins”.
It’s just human variation is far wider than popular opinion or present examples.
In other species that intermix like that, you see stretches of DNA where all admixture is excluded, because it’s instantly selected out. In humans, the such a stretch exists, and has to do with sex determination, which is a pretty much a smoking gun. I’m finding stuff about the Y chromosome, but I thought there was something on the X chromosome to do with testicle development as well.
Obviously, female hybrids were fertile at least some of the time, since there is admixture. But, it’s possible every half-and-half male hybrid ever ended up sterile, and later generations would probably have had higher rates of sterility.
The general idea that humans are irrationally obsessed with categories and tribes holds, but this doesn’t seem like a clear-cut example.
Those “hybrids” would have children with “human” X’s even if they were daughters, but be introducing neanderthal DNA back into a “double human X” mother, ensuring her daughter still had the reproductive advantages over a neanderthal mother still, but retaining neanderthal genes adaptive to the northern climate.
Shake and bake a couple generations, you get white people.
Anyone outside of Africa has similar-ish admixture; skin colour has little to do with it. European hunter-gathers at the end of the ice age were what we’d consider black, and they were replaced by Middle Eastern looking and originating agriculturalists. The light skin colour is from Eurasian steppe nomads that rode in on the first horses in the bronze age. Other unrelated groups, like from the Caucuses area or pre-modern Japan, also have/had light skin.
Where do new species come from over time, then? You seem to be saying that there is a time when they are all variants of the same species…and then…bam! Different species.
PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation
PPS: eg https://mallet.oeb.harvard.edu/publications/hybridization-invasion-genome
A population diverging to the point where they can no longer consistently produce viable offspring…
No, you’re just making assumptions after not understanding something and down oting it.
Why do you think people would spend time teaching things to you when you act like this?
Ok: dogs and wolves (and coyotes) Different species, can interbreed. Genetics is complicated. Definition of species as a human concept is complicated. Speciation is complicated, fuzzy, can happen on and off depending on the
mutationinvolved genes and there can remain bridge individuals that are variants who can breed between separate species. 😬Buddy…
It’s the same thing.
If humans interbred and produced fertile offspring with “superarchiac” hominds, then they were the same species the whole time and never truly differentiated.
If modern dogs can interbreed and produced fertile offspring with wolves, then they were the same species the whole time and never truly differentiated.
You don’t even know the scientific definition of “species”…
https://www.britannica.com/science/species-taxon
Quick edit:
You added a link to hybrid speciazation…
Where two different groups who have differentiated from a parent species in similar enough ways that they can reliably produce fertile offspring…
Meaning they are the same species and not two separate ones, their populations just didn’t overlap before.
Overtime they may differentiate
Like, all this is relatively basic, but if you keep asking questions with this attitude I’m not likely to keep explaining shit
Ok, you must be trolling. You are building your whole argument on a reductive definition of species that predates genetics.
Literally the opposite…
I’m going to quote a lot you probably won’t read from the above link, but at the bottom I’ll bold the bit that says you’re operated on flawed historical assumptions that predate DNA. Stuff that used morphology (what something looks like) because that’s all we could do
First off, you’re not understanding what a subspecies is, so quoting that bit:
But here’s the part about genetic you got backwards:
Like, it’s almost impressive that you managed to be so convinced of the opposite of the scientific consensus in every possible way…
Where are you getting your information?
TikTok?
That’s the one reasonably well-defined definition, anyway.
Neanderthals and humans produced often/usually sterile offspring, though.
I never heard that, and I can’t even think of a way that evidence could show that…
We know that for whatever reason there’s less neaderthal on the X chromosome, but that doesn’t have anything to do with sterility of offspring at a high frequency.
It most likely was just that any mutation that did make it over, was outcompeted. Which comes back to the prevailing theory that “modern” humans main advantage was reproducing like bunnies, and that advantage was carried on our X chromosome.
That would mean the neanderthal DNA that was passed down and still around, came over from the crossing of male neanderthals with female humans to male sons. Which (going off memory) we do have evidence to support.
Those “hybrids” would have children with “human” X’s even if they were daughters, but be introducing neanderthal DNA back into a “double human X” mother, ensuring her daughter still had the reproductive advantages over a neanderthal mother still, but retaining neanderthal genes adaptive to the northern climate.
Shake and bake a couple generations, you get white people.
But at no point does it mean any “hybrid” was sterile, just that a thousand years later they didn’t have direct living descendants, an incredibly common thing especially back them.
Edit:
This already happened with cro-magnons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon
Because we only had morphology to go off of, they were labelled a separate species.
However that was largely due to their harder lifestyle than genetics and with DNA testing they’re now recognized as a “sub species” which is why later waves of “modern” humans reabsorbed them into the gene pool so quickly, likely along with some neanderthal DNA as icing.
All I’m saying. Is that eventually the other “archaics” will get the same recognition as “siblings” on the family tree and not “cousins”.
It’s just human variation is far wider than popular opinion or present examples.
In other species that intermix like that, you see stretches of DNA where all admixture is excluded, because it’s instantly selected out. In humans, the such a stretch exists, and has to do with sex determination, which is a pretty much a smoking gun. I’m finding stuff about the Y chromosome, but I thought there was something on the X chromosome to do with testicle development as well.
Obviously, female hybrids were fertile at least some of the time, since there is admixture. But, it’s possible every half-and-half male hybrid ever ended up sterile, and later generations would probably have had higher rates of sterility.
The general idea that humans are irrationally obsessed with categories and tribes holds, but this doesn’t seem like a clear-cut example.
Anyone outside of Africa has similar-ish admixture; skin colour has little to do with it. European hunter-gathers at the end of the ice age were what we’d consider black, and they were replaced by Middle Eastern looking and originating agriculturalists. The light skin colour is from Eurasian steppe nomads that rode in on the first horses in the bronze age. Other unrelated groups, like from the Caucuses area or pre-modern Japan, also have/had light skin.
I’m sorry, there’s just so many incorrect things you just gishgalloped that were never gonna get thru this.
I can’t explain anything if every time I try you being up 5 more things you need explained.