Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: New paper: Neanderthals were not subspecies of H. sapiens, but
 different species
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 15:54:56 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vkn7ne$3qt4b$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vjk6dr$1r5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2b6c086-edad-4ae9-93e2-cdab08a50c0d@gmail.com>
 <vjkiak$3m09$2@dont-email.me> <vkkofe$363mc$1@dont-email.me>
 <od0smj1ievqscsq77n09b56pksmh1gupa5@4ax.com>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="51956"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H4CuHTR0rgbmIzEu1nqBTFZY69w=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <od0smj1ievqscsq77n09b56pksmh1gupa5@4ax.com>
	FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,
	USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org

On 12/26/2024 7:28 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:22:24 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>:
> 
> Commenting solely on the subject, my recollection is that
> the accepted taxonomy was that there were two subspecies: H.
> sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens neanderthalensis. Is that now
> considered to be incorrect?

They are trying to define different species by genetic distance.  They 
want to claim that limited gene flow that produces two populations as 
different as modern humans and Neanderthals should be designated as 
different species.

This allows geographically separated populations to be called different 
species if they are different enough in their population genetics.

It would likely be good news for racist segregationists.  Just think of 
how close to being a different species the New Guinea populations are 
that are over 7% Denisovan and 3% Neanderthal compared to African Modern 
humans that never left Africa.  Denisovans are even less genetically 
related to African modern humans than Neanderthal.  Both Neanderthals 
and Denisovans left Africa around 800,000 years ago, but Neanderthals 
interbred with Africans a couple of ice ages ago, so they were already 
more closely related to the modern humans that made it out of Africa 
during the last ice age.

Ron Okimoto
> 
>>> On 12/14/2024 12:21 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> On 14/12/2024 16:32, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/24 6:58 AM, Chris Thompson wrote:
>>>>> https://scitechdaily.com/rewriting-evolution-study-shows-
>>>>> neanderthals- and-humans-were-not-the-same-species/
>>>>>
>>>> Interesting paper.  It's turning out that species is a slippery
>>>> concept.   If two species never interbreed, they're clearly separate.
>>>> If the occasionally interbreed, they may still be separate, but how
>>>> occasionally?  I'd agree that Neanderthals are separate.  It's
>>>> interesting that interbreedability can go on for a surprisingly long
>>>> time, hundreds of thousands of years.  Some plants are still separate
>>>> species after tens of millions of years of interbreeding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some plants are still interfertile after tens of millions of years of
>>> presumed isolation. For example North American and European species of
>>> lime (basswood), oak, plane, poplar, and horse chestnut (buckeye). Is
>>> that what you meant; if not I'm curious what taxa you have evidence for
>>> tens of millions of interbreeding; I would have thought that evidence
>>> for such would be hard to come by.
>>>
>> Brassicaceae should count.  Many hybrids are viable and have produced
>> new crop plants.  Think of broccoflower (broccoli and cauliflower).
>>
>> They wanted to put restrictions on making them roundup resistant because
>> so many weed plants interbreed with them that the resistance was likely
>> going to get into the weeds.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto