My thinking is the reason living breathing animals (humans included) share the same DNA, is because we are all from the same setting... ie: Earth. Yet, what would happen if an alien from outer space was found roaming the Earth and we were able to extract some DNA from them. Would they have the same 23 pairs of chromosomes as we humans? That is what I would like to know. If they do share the same 23 pairs, then why are they so different... or are they? What is so special about the 23 pairs of chromosomes? Is it the sequence in which the 23 pairs are linked up? I don't know.
On the flip side: What if we found that the alien had over 300 pairs of chromosomes! Wouldn't we humans feel "slighted" somehow?
Here, we think we know a great deal about our "environment" and the species that inhabit our rock. I sincerely doubt we are even scratching the surface of what we could find out. Yet, the technology to make sense of things, may not be around for another 100-500 or maybe 1000 yrs.
Arien Huckeba Arbitrary is exactly why nobody knows; There's no agreement on a definition of what a species is and tiger+lion=fertile offspring. Most of us have neanderthal DNA, a very small number have what's probably erectus DNA (and there're some remains which look like erectus/sapiens hybrids), so 80000 years ago there were either three or one human species so by one definition they were the same species and thus obviously human. But likely the same type of branching and merging occured earlier too which leads to A+B same species, B+C same species but A+C different.
Human is not defined as a species here. The "Human Species" is usable because as of now, there is only one Human species living. However, it doesn't mean there aren't also extinct Human species.
I think in this article, they define Human as being part of the Hominini genus.
What we mean by Human, AFAICT, is "the group of Simian organisms that achieved sapience, unique on Earth in that regard." If Australopithecus had branched in a second surviving species (definition : we couldn't have fertile offspring), they would still be classified as Humans. If dinosaurs had evolved into sapient Serpent-folk, they wouldn't be considered humans, same with outer space aliens, uplifted dogs or digigal AI. Which is not to say they wouldn't be covered by Human Right chart - or rather, a probably more complex Sophont Right chart.
I vaguely remember a book where a new species is found, which is at the blurred limit between human and non-sapient ape - it's not even clear if they have a language IIRC, and the entire book is about trying to determine if they are human (and make it legal, so they can't be exploited as cheap slave labour). They get an idea when they see that some of the ones they study (in a reserve) cook their rations in a fire (despite it already been cooked) while others don't. Then the former end up leaving the reserve, apparently because they don't like just being fed and do nothing. What they get is that it's actually a ritual, and use that to define Belief as proof of Humanity (in a rather large definition, from religious belief to the will to study Nature and having a sense of humour, IIRC). And they add that only part of the species needs to apply (so the slavers won't try and enslave the non-cooking ones).
The conclusion is interesting : How are Humans defined? By whatever the existing Human decides. It's an invite-only club.
One rather bizarre thing, though. While the book was clearly anti-racist, it has a line about how "the intelligence of a Kenyan peasant woman is closer to a gorilla's than Einstein's" (about how she is still obviously human)...
Due to a small but consistent influx of spam, comments will now be checked before publishing. Only egregious spam/illegal/racist crap will be disapproved, everything else will be published.
Why do they have to be classified as "human", at all? They are two totally different species.
ReplyDeleteMark Ruhland That's exactly the point. We don't know what defines our species.
ReplyDeleteMy thinking is the reason living breathing animals (humans included) share the same DNA, is because we are all from the same setting... ie: Earth. Yet, what would happen if an alien from outer space was found roaming the Earth and we were able to extract some DNA from them. Would they have the same 23 pairs of chromosomes as we humans? That is what I would like to know. If they do share the same 23 pairs, then why are they so different... or are they? What is so special about the 23 pairs of chromosomes? Is it the sequence in which the 23 pairs are linked up? I don't know.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side: What if we found that the alien had over 300 pairs of chromosomes! Wouldn't we humans feel "slighted" somehow?
Here, we think we know a great deal about our "environment" and the species that inhabit our rock. I sincerely doubt we are even scratching the surface of what we could find out. Yet, the technology to make sense of things, may not be around for another 100-500 or maybe 1000 yrs.
You'll like this :
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count
Well, now I just feel insignificant in the whole grand scheme of things. Gee, thanx. #sarcasm
ReplyDeleteDifferent species? Are tigers and lions one or two species? Nobody knows but lots of people have opinions.
ReplyDeleteArien Huckeba Arbitrary is exactly why nobody knows; There's no agreement on a definition of what a species is and tiger+lion=fertile offspring. Most of us have neanderthal DNA, a very small number have what's probably erectus DNA (and there're some remains which look like erectus/sapiens hybrids), so 80000 years ago there were either three or one human species so by one definition they were the same species and thus obviously human. But likely the same type of branching and merging occured earlier too which leads to A+B same species, B+C same species but A+C different.
ReplyDeleteHuman is not defined as a species here. The "Human Species" is usable because as of now, there is only one Human species living. However, it doesn't mean there aren't also extinct Human species.
ReplyDeleteI think in this article, they define Human as being part of the Hominini genus.
What we mean by Human, AFAICT, is "the group of Simian organisms that achieved sapience, unique on Earth in that regard."
If Australopithecus had branched in a second surviving species (definition : we couldn't have fertile offspring), they would still be classified as Humans. If dinosaurs had evolved into sapient Serpent-folk, they wouldn't be considered humans, same with outer space aliens, uplifted dogs or digigal AI.
Which is not to say they wouldn't be covered by Human Right chart - or rather, a probably more complex Sophont Right chart.
I vaguely remember a book where a new species is found, which is at the blurred limit between human and non-sapient ape - it's not even clear if they have a language IIRC, and the entire book is about trying to determine if they are human (and make it legal, so they can't be exploited as cheap slave labour).
ReplyDeleteThey get an idea when they see that some of the ones they study (in a reserve) cook their rations in a fire (despite it already been cooked) while others don't. Then the former end up leaving the reserve, apparently because they don't like just being fed and do nothing.
What they get is that it's actually a ritual, and use that to define Belief as proof of Humanity (in a rather large definition, from religious belief to the will to study Nature and having a sense of humour, IIRC). And they add that only part of the species needs to apply (so the slavers won't try and enslave the non-cooking ones).
The conclusion is interesting : How are Humans defined? By whatever the existing Human decides. It's an invite-only club.
One rather bizarre thing, though. While the book was clearly anti-racist, it has a line about how "the intelligence of a Kenyan peasant woman is closer to a gorilla's than Einstein's" (about how she is still obviously human)...
That said, to quote St Augustine (about time, but equally fitting for human or even life), "I know what it is until someone asks."
ReplyDelete