Modern Humans / Social “Racism” vs. Science

Subspecies (science Def.)

A subdivision of a species of organisms, usually based on geographic distribution. The subspecies name is written in lowercase italics following the species name. For example, Gorilla gorilla gorilla is the western lowland gorilla, and Gorilla gorilla graueri is the eastern lowland gorilla.

Note: Subspecies is usually a natural division based on geography – so we might designate African Homo erectus and Asian Homo erectus as subspecies of H. erectus, but the problem is, which one is the “original”? Is African Homo erectus the original species, with Asian (and a possible “mess” of other fossil groups), a subspecies?

We have the same problem in “our” species designations: Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies of Homo sapiens, which is terribly confusing – just who is the “original” Homo sapiens? (One must consider, given EuroAmerican prerogative in these matters, that Homo sapiens sapiens = “white EuroAmericans”) 

Up until widespread “globalization” – world travel – Asian Homo sapiens sapiens would have been geographically isolated from other groups, such as European Homo sapiens sapiens, for both to be designated as “subspecies” – along with other many other geographic subspecies.

Speciation would likely have followed, if world-wide migration and travel had not occurred.

Breed (science Def.)

Whereas subspecies refers to geographic isolation, breed refers to social isolation due to domestication.

Genetics. a relatively homogenous group of animals within a species, developed and maintained by humans.

A group of organisms having common ancestors and sharing certain traits that are not shared with other members of the same species. Breeds are usually produced by mating selected parents.

You can’t say that humans DON’T maintain and even enforce “limited breeding” by mating selected parents! Marriage laws and customs, especially arranged marriages, in many, if not most cultures, designate exactly who may marry whom, by religion, “race”, social class, ethnic origin, language, education, wealth etc.

These are attempts to preserve “blood lines” by groups who place themselves at the “top of the pyramid” – and abuse those groups of people considered to be inferior, subhuman or even “not human” at all, but equivalent to “domestic  animals”! This panoramic “control” of reproduction, points to “breeds” of humans being the proper terminology. 

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

An evolutionary history of Homo sapiens must explain the range of physical differences that are expressed in individuals, despite low genetic diversity for our species (and apes in general) Despite differences, reproduction is successful between Homo sapiens across regional (geographic and climatic) types – previously designated as “races” – race is a “social” category, and is not based in science, but in social prejudice, as are too many invalid “concepts” about Homo sapiens.

Papua FB JPEGWilt Chamberlin, Willy Shoemaker

Size diversity within Homo sapiens is extreme.

Size diversity in domestic dog breeds is extreme. Most dog breeds have been “created” by humans in the previous 100 years.

A Wolf species was the wild genetic reservoir for modern dogs, a gene reservoir manipulated by humans for specific physical and behavioral characteristics, especially for arrested development, from puppyhood to “almost” adult behavior.

Was Homo erectus the wild genetic reservoir for Neanderthal, Homo sapiens and a confusing array of fossil humans (“Bones of Contention”) that are classified and reclassified as separate species?

 

 

 

 

 

10 thoughts on “Modern Humans / Social “Racism” vs. Science

  1. Do we select a mate on the parameters of what society deems to be ideal or on what we consider ideal? Can we separate the two ideals easily? Or are they the same? Why do we prefer a certain type over another? Or do we continually choose the wrong type? If one chooses a mate that is outside the social norm are they shunned? Do they have to relocate from their comfort zone?

    With the lower cost and ease of air travel we are able to move about to areas and meet people that we might not normally get the chance to see. Television is becoming more and more diverse in the actors they employ. Maybe we can thank the Wright brothers or television for the slowly increasing natural diversity in humans.

    The C-section birth is the developed world achievement. Without it difficult births wouldn’t stand a chance for the mother and child to survive. Though some wealthy choose this option of birthing for various reasons including multiple births. All child birth is a risk. On another note if the mother is Rh(-) negative and the child Rh(+) then a cesarean section birth is much safer for the mother.

    Like

    • I haven’t a clue how individuals choose each other, and in the U.S, about 50% of marriages fail, so that might indicate that trusting our own judgment isn’t a great idea. I read that people in arranged marriages report being the happiest – Childbirth in humans is no more difficult than other primates, but human women are quite unhealthy, (poor diet, obesity, drugs & alcohol, lack of exercise, too young, infertile) compared to wild animals. Premature birth is now a huge problem; the result is unhealthy infants kept alive with technology, but doomed to lifelong health problems. Somewhere along the way, religion? medicine? women? decided that every pregnancy must produce live birth, and every woman, fit or not, must have children. Pretty screwy!

      Liked by 1 person

      • We are hardly the best examples of an ideal species. We won’t be winning any prizes. We are very unhealthy as a whole. Science allows us to preserve/aid mankind to what end? Those of us lucky enough to be here squander our time and money, while those without dream of having enough to not just survive but to live. Does science give us false hope that we can live forever? I don’t wish to be around for that long with a poor quality of life.

        The poor statistics of marriage failure is unfortunately common in the West. Perhaps we can blame television and media for trying to make it impossible for people to obtain happiness within relationships and themselves. Instead of allowing others to define what we want, we could always learn to trust ourselves on what we need. It’s not too late ever to learn.

        BTW I detest the new comment box on the pop down side panel! Driving me nuts. 🙂

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s