• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

What Is 'Human'?

Doctor_Occupant said:
Nice to see the board defeating ignorance (mine, for one) by actually answering questions, and at the same time raising new ones.

It occurs to me that hedgewizard must be wrong when he says that when two humans have a child the result has got to be human.

Think in terms of evolution: at some point in the evolution of a species a male and a female are going to breed something that crosses a line between them and something else. Clear as mud. Let's try that again.

On the way to Homo Sapiens Sapiens there's Homo Fred. Over successive generations, Homo Fred continues to evolve until one day a child is born that is less like its parents than any preceeding child. Looking back on the fossil record, we identify this as Homo Barney. Now, these are hominids not humans. But one day their distant descendants will be human - another line is crossed. So if this were to happen today, would we notice?

What if it already has?

Doesn't quite work like that.
If only there were clearly defined lines, it would make understanding evolution so much easier. The next step along will be generally backwards compatiable, so therefore still the same species, but might not be compatiable with twenty steps back, but all intervening steps will generally be able to mate with the one in front and the one behind (but may choose not to of course).

Richard Dawkins puts it a lot clearer than my own garbled attempts:

...The best-known case is herring gull versus lesser black-backed gull. In Britain these are clearly distinct species, quite different in colour. Anybody can tell them apart. But if you follow the population of herring gulls westward round the North Pole to North America, then via Alaska across Siberia and back to Europe again, you will notice a curious fact. The 'herring gulls' gradually become less and less like herring gulls and more and more like lesser black-backed gulls until it turns out that our European lesser black-backed gulls actually are the other end of a ring that started out as herring gulls. At every stage around the ring, the birds are sufficiently similar to their neighbours to interbreed with them. Until, that is, the ends of the continuum are reached, in Europe. At this point the herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull never interbreed, although they are linked by a continuous series of interbreeding colleagues all the way round the world. The only thing that is special about ring species like these gulls is that the intermediates are still alive. All pairs of related species are potentially ring species. The intermediates must have lived once. It is just that in most cases they are now dead...
 
What makes us human?

My 13 yo son has a rare genetic syndrome, missing a significant section of one of his chromosomes. When he was younger, one of the geneticists told me that his genetic deletion was "incompatible with human life."

We have allowed him to be studied by the world's leading geneticists to provide them insight into what makes us human in the genetic sense.

These are the questions I asked them and what they told me:

Does his genetic syndrome make him less than human? No. He is a human being. His ability to reproduce has not been determined.

Does it make him more than human? No, but they don't understand how his body and brain have overcome and compensated for the loss of genetic material and the resulting changes in his body. He also is missing the genetic code for transplant rejection, and theoretically, would be able to accept any transplanted organ. While that isn't a current human trait, that would be a desireable trait for everyone to have.

What do I think? My son isn't human because of what he can or cannot do, think, or be. He is the child of two human parents, and therefore is a human.

JandZmom
(Edited for spelling errors - hope I caught them all.)
 
robbo616 said:
I have an inane question to ask.

I have heard a FOAFtale that DS peeps are extremely strong.Is this true?
I hadn't heard this one before. As I said somewhere else, my sis has Downs. She has one arm weaker than the other and tends not to use it, plus her joints are super flexible so she is quite floppy (and can get her knee to her forehead without bending her leg!)
It's a byproduct of her condition but I don't know how often it occurs with Downs so that's as much as I know.
 
CygnusRex said:
Doesn't quite work like that.
If only there were clearly defined lines, it would make understanding evolution so much easier.


You were clearer than Richard, and thank you. So near, and yet so far. :)
 
What is a human?

An upright anthropoid with self awareness and opposable thumbs.
 
I noticed an ad last night for an upcoming Armand Marie Leroi documentary starting tomorrow:

What makes Us Human

It should be interesting. There's also a list of links on the C4 microsite that may also be of interest.
 
Interesting thread. I think I remember that some writers (Cohen and Stewart?) stating that chimps should be upgraded from Pans to Homo. Just saying................
 
Dingo, may I suggest you read So You Think You're Human?, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, Oxford University Press, 2004) if you haven't already done so. It's a very interesting book, which essentially asks the same question that you brought up originally: "How do we define 'human'?"

The concept of humanness has changed over the centuries and will continue to change. (Let's remember that, in Canada, women were only officially declared "persons" in the 20th century; and, of course, in the USA, blacks were conveniently denied human status for the sake of the political economy; I now live in Australia, under the rule of a prime minister who currently seems to doubt the humanness of the Yellow Hordes clamouring at the gates of God's Country and definitely sees the aboriginal people as "our younger brothers")

Fernandez-Armesto provides a good historical overview of "humanness", but he also asks why we confine the concept of humanity to people. Why not apes and other thinking animals? And where do we draw the line?

You question was a good one. The vitriolic responses were a bit of shock. I've always enjoyed the FT site because of the general inquisitiveness and acceptance or unorthodox ideas of the posters. For a minute there I thought I was reading the IMdB.
 
Thanks for the reply, I will try and find that book. Also with all the talk recently to "upgrade" chimpanzees, I find my question asked once again. To be honest I think that every living creature should be respected the same, regardless of chromosomes and genes. If we can't master that as humans, why should we call ourselfs "better"?
However a lot of time has passed since I asked the first time and I have since found out that Downs people can have non-downs children. So I recon they are definetly human...BUT...[I'm only playing devils advocate here, don't rip me apart again] are they homo sapiens sapiens or maybe a different classification?
Again I am saying that being a different classification is not necessarily a BAD thing.
However there is a distinct difference between Downs people and non-downs, the genetical difference is actually visible and measurable in behavioural terms. Also it is interesting that Downs people always look alike, something that would suggest that they DO belong to a specified group of humans, by saying they are exactly like everyone else is commendable but strictly speaking wrong [again I am not being offensive as I pesonally don't think that belonging to teh human sapien sapien race is something to be proud of].
A Mule for example looks mostly like a horse but it has certain characteristics, like long ears and a definite genetic difference albeit small. So we call it a MUle and not a horse, why is this not the case when it comes to humans?

I'd be grateful for more answers [and I mean answers not rantings].

Thanks
 
Dingo667 said:
A Mule for example looks mostly like a horse but it has certain characteristics, like long ears and a definite genetic difference albeit small. So we call it a MUle and not a horse, why is this not the case when it comes to humans?

I'd be grateful for more answers [and I mean answers not rantings].

Thanks
The easiest answer to that is, we don't call a genetically separate group of people by a different name because they generally don't like it- the names they get assigned are usually used derogatorily. (Mongol, spastic, midget, and plenty more.)
We wouldn't call a mule a horse because it isn't one- it's partly a different animal, a donkey. A zebra looks like a horse but isn't called 'horse' either.
Downs people come from human parents and though their genetic make up is slightly different, it is still human genetic make up. Just as they have the genetic code for brown hair, green eyes, etc, they have the genetic code for Downs. The extra chromosome they have is a human chromosome after all.
Genes are pretty mad once you start looking into them anyway- I never knew you can be an XX male, or an XY female. You can be a chimera and have the DNA for two entirely different people in your body. It's filled with grey areas and pitfalls and somewhere, somebody is probably getting paid lots of grant money to look into the very question that started this thread. We're in the wrong job...
 
The pending demise of the Y chromosome could give rise to a whole new species of human, a professor of comparative genomics says.

Scientists have been speculating about the demise of the Y chromosome for some years now but Professor Jenny Graves of the Australian National University in Canberra has come up with a bold new twist on the theory.

Graves, who has been working on sex chromosomes in marsupials, will present her theory at the 11th International Congress of Genetics in Brisbane today.

She will tell the conference that new 'male making' genes on other chromosomes could step up to do the job of the Y chromosome's SRY gene, which is the key to making males male.

But this could mean men without Y chromosomes would split off from those with, eventually evolving into a new species of hominid.

"It's quite possible that you could make new hominid species that way," she says.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1710838.htm?health
 
kirmildew
The easiest answer to that is, we don't call a genetically separate group of people by a different name because they generally don't like it- the names they get assigned are usually used derogatorily. (Mongol, spastic, midget, and plenty more.)

Great moments in science -Eugenics
Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, in some cases, genocide on races perceived as inferior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Hold on, aren’t we all different?
I think that treating all animals with the same respect is a noble sentiment, but I also think that we should start with our own species and move on from there.
Classification of the human species is not to be recommended for the above reasons – it gets abused. If you start classifying for genetic reasons, who’s next? The first to jump on the band wagon will be the National Front.
How about genetic reclassification for a tendency to start war and one for the cold and clinical who can’t see that their totally neutral studies are in fact not? But then it’s probably not missing genes, but missing marbles. :roll:
 
Are different breeds of cow, for example, considered different species or is 'breed' a scientific term. Or are they subspecies of bovine?

And have we yet defined what makes a species?
 
Broadly speaking, for a "breed" of, say, dog or horse, you would need both phenotype and genotype: common genes, and common physical characteristics. Link You can still mate an Arabian to a Shire, though, because they are the same species, same number of chromosomes, etc. Mules are almost always infertile (and I hedge it because there *have* been some fertile mules) because donkeys and horses don't have the same number of chromosomes.

Btw, I have heard that you can't tell the difference between a dog and a wolf through DNA, but have no idea if that's true.
 
A Tigon is the hybrid of a male tiger and a lioness. The tigon is not currently as common as the converse hybrid, the liger, however in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, tigons were more common than ligers.
 
almond13 said:
A Tigon is the hybrid of a male tiger and a lioness. The tigon is not currently as common as the converse hybrid, the liger, however in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, tigons were more common than ligers.
...? Would you care to expand further upon why this has been included, i.e. what point you are making about which part of the discussion?
We have all heard of them- in what context are you bringing them up?
All in the interests of healthy debate and all that.
 
...? Would you care to expand further upon why this has been included, i.e. what point you are making about which part of the discussion?
It was because of this one:

You can still mate an Arabian to a Shire, though, because they are the same species, same number of chromosomes, etc. Mules are almost always infertile (and I hedge it because there *have* been some fertile mules) because donkeys and horses don't have the same number of chromosomes

Lions and tigers are, I believe, different species?
 
almond13 said:
...? Would you care to expand further upon why this has been included, i.e. what point you are making about which part of the discussion?
It was because of this one:

You can still mate an Arabian to a Shire, though, because they are the same species, same number of chromosomes, etc. Mules are almost always infertile (and I hedge it because there *have* been some fertile mules) because donkeys and horses don't have the same number of chromosomes

Lions and tigers are, I believe, different species?

Depends on which definition of species you use
Morphological species then yes, Biological species then it gets a bit shakey because they obviously can interbreed but it would be unlikely in the wild. You have to add in the geographical isolation for that one to work.
 
Back
Top