Was Carl Linnaeus right in his theory that there are four subspecies of Homo sapiens?

[Sevenpointfive]

In the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae (1758), classified modern human beings into four subspecies according to geographic origin: H. s. asiaticus, H. s. europaeus, H. s. afer, and H. s. americanus. His work was discarded because of racial prejudice and that the differentiations between the proposed races were superficial.

How wrong is that?

There are definitely undisputed characteristics that are in the DNA of people that can tell you what subspecies you are.

[NathanDavis]

his work was discarded because it was wrong, and it was wrong because genetic studies were not a thing in the 1750's

if you want to understand a bit more about biology and genetics, here...

Ask a Biologist, a modern science article...

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/human-races#:~:text=A%20species%20is%20a%20group,of%20physical%20and%20genetic%20differences.

[Sevenpointfive]

yeah, that proves my point

[NathanDavis]

my chuckle woke up my cat... lol

[Soteris]

He is not. Scientists has failed to find distinct groups in humanity because it is so mixed to the point where it defies easy classification. The problem is not that we can't find distinct differences from one person to another, the problem is where to draw the line. You need to be able to create a definition which you can test which is difficult since the closer to the middle you get between two different groups the harder, if not impossible, it becomes to find a place to separate them. That is why humanity is defined as a single race with a decent diversity rather than a collection of groups with their own unique traits.

[Sevenpointfive]

keep drinking the water bro

[Soteris]

I do not live in USA. My water is perfectly safe and does not contain any lead from lead pipes.

[Sevenpointfive]

but we could separate them genetically. i think we don't because it would cause chaos

[Soteris]

No you can't. Believe me, people have tried but the key word of "separating" has been found to be impossible. You can identify culture groups more or less but you can't SEPARATE them. In other words, they are part of a whole.

[Sevenpointfive]

i can't believe this. there are physiological differences

[Soteris]

But where do you draw the line?

[Sevenpointfive]

well. you never draw the line. why are organs that are genetically compatible not compatible? the answer is that they aren't compatible. you have to keep digging into the genetic code of animals/humans

[Soteris]

If you dont draw the line then they are never two distinct groups, just a variation within a single group and therefore not an example of specialization or races or whatever you want to call them. You focus everything on differences when the thing you need to focus on are where it would separate or not. That is the only important point in this conversation.

[Soteris]

speciation*

[Sevenpointfive]

some people think we came from monkeys and some don't believe that. but humans don't stop evolving. there are different subspecies of hominids and thats something we can agree on. if you want to stop classification at H. s. s. that's fine, but there are differences

[Soteris]

First of all, we are apes and not monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys but we are not directly related to them as such.

Secondly, humans have indeed not stopped to evolve. But, and there is the big problem for you. First of all, we as a species is probably only around 200-300 thousand years old. Sounds a lot, really isent. But it certainly could have been enough time because evolution can, under certain circumstances work at vastly different rates.

More specifically, species under harsher evolutionary pressures evolves faster. In other words, species who struggle evolves faster than species which thrives which in turn evolves much slower. Humanity unsurprisingly is thriving right now. Furthermore, isolation also speeds up evolution where isolated pockets can evolve independently in different direction the smaller they are the quicker.

Humanity on the other hand has been very keen on living together in large communities and mix together through travel. The best chance we had was probably the people isolated in Northern and Southern America before Christopher Columbus found them.

Aside from that brief period between the last ice age some 10 000 years ago and now, we have been incredibly slow to evolve and keep mixing in any new mutation until it becomes indistinct in our society and therefore part of the diversity of humanity rather than a new race. Unless we intentionally separate ourselves for hundreds of thousands of years we are probably never going to evolve into separate species.

[Sevenpointfive]

africa hasn't changed for a very, very long time. i would have expected the evolution to happen there first. it probably has. we know black musculature is different than whites, browns and yellows

[Soteris]

Well, that is just plain wrong. Africa has changed all the time throughout history and prehistory. It is readily accessible both by boat and by trade to both Asia and Europe so they have always moved together. Also, that is not how evolution works but I digress.

You have a very strange view of human history.

[Sevenpointfive]

it's not wrong. you fail to see my point. part of africa hasn't changed from a viewpoint, but it has evolved. just like kiwis and parts of mexico have kept their lineage intact without influence. they might not evolve much. those kiwis look like cavemen.

if your only rebuttal is that outside traits caused them to evolve that's half wrong.

[Soteris]

Again, that is just not true. There has always been a cultural and, more importantly for this conversation, genetic exchange between Europe, Asia and Africa. This is especially true when a large part of Africa was inhabited by nomads which by themselves naturally traveled around and exchanged and their culture of trade. At no point was Africa actually isolated from the rest of the world like North and South America was so their genetics did not meaningfully deviate either.

Nothing in Africa stayed uniquely inside Africa for long.

[Sevenpointfive]

i respect your insight, but i don't agree. if everyone in africa had British genes then i'd know about it

[Soteris]

Well there aren't such things as "British" genes. Are you perhaps basing this off of services like ancestry who can locate where you come from by a DNA test?

[Anonymous]

Looking at it from a purely objective scientific approach, it would be much like the comparison of horses and zebras. The main differences can be stated as superficial there, too. There's pretty much only a size difference and different coloration, but they're genetically compatible.

But we can't categorize humans into different species or sub-species that way because it's unethical.

[Sevenpointfive]

so you can but it's unethical

[JamesDiaz11]

He was right, but it was overly simplified- there are likely more than 4, but less than 12.

[Sevenpointfive]

really? tell me more!

[Lliam]

Nah. That's like looking at different colors and other physical differences in Felis silvestris catus and defining them as different subspecies.

[Sevenpointfive]

what's wrong with that? that's science. that's how you dichotomize

[Lliam]

Whatever you say.
I guess a gray, a brown, a white, a black, an orange, a calico, and a tortie are all different species of house cats.

[Sevenpointfive]

yes. a subspecies

[Lliam]

Show me a zoologist who will confirm that those are subspecies.

[Sevenpointfive]

i'm not saying color is a good indicator of a separate species, but there is clearly a difference in humans

[Sevenpointfive]

they should be

[Dargil]

Not species. Regional groups, aka Races. Kodiak, Alaskan Brown and Grizzly bears are the same species that can reproduce flawlessly between them. They can even breed with Polar Bears, which may be just another race.

[Guardian45]

ALL of these so-called genetic code differences add up to approximately 99.9% human DNA being identical!

[LeeannaDD]

Eugenics was banned for a reason lmao.