Human Sub-Species?!

For the record, I do not agree with pretty much everything this guy says but still thought it interesting enough to post. I think where he fails is in the human factors around his theory. Especially the idea that the elite will only breed with the elite causing this change to occur. Humans have a long history of breaking social barriers when it comes to love, marriage and children and that will continue. The idea itself has already been tried with the ruling classes of Europe for hundreds of years and we’re not really any different now than we were then. And the differences we do see are based in medical technology and nutrition, not genetics. Anyway, from a purely scientific point of view, everything he says is possible but I would say it’s unlikely when the social factors are taken into account.

12 thoughts on “Human Sub-Species?!”

  1. In todays world we are already seeing a gene flux as population intermarry. But this is not a divergence into separate human lines or let us say subspecies, but into homogenization or mixing a of populations. I see nothing in the article that speaks to environmental pressures that would cause such a divergence. Even in his article he talks about traits becoming more uniform and yet diverging? Hmmmm. And while you say his hypothesis may be possible, I’m sure any serious scientic look would conclude the probability is so low as to be not possible.

  2. Good point on the environmental pressures as that is what usually leads to a divergence into sub-species. I didn’t want to get too preachy with my original post but that is something I had thought of as well. I wouldn’t underestimate the power of sexual selection though. It has proven to be one of the most powerful catalysts of change in the animal kingdom. I just think that in human society there are a lot more factors in play than pure physical characteristics. Our “selection” is based far more on emotional factors than physical. And science can’t predict emotion.

  3. Science also can’t predict when societies in the developing world will finally let go of arragned-marriage practices. Let’s not forget that not all mating is “selected”.

  4. Very true! I also think one could make the argument that many humans aren’t really “selective” at all when it comes to sexual encounters. The production of offspring may not be the goal of these encounters but it is an inevitable by-product. Humans are one of the only species on the planet to use sex as a recreational activity instead of the purely biological desire to spread one’s genes. How’s that for a cold, heartless, scientific interpretation?!:)

  5. Also that “Humans are one of the only species on the planet to use sex as a recreational activity” was not a decision made by our forebearers, but evolved due to its success over other reproductive solutions for our species.

  6. (In response to ms. anonymous)

    Right…and who am I to judge…I mean I enjoy…ummm…nevermind 🙂

    and wm d, I’m sorry but you lost me with your last comment.

  7. It is believed that no clear sign of female fertility, thus a reason for recreational sex, evolved to bond females and males together in an interdependant family unit. Keeping them together for long periods of time. Creating a more successful environment for the raising and nurturing of the of the young with their very long ‘childhoods’. Most species become adults quickly.

  8. This discussion reminds me of something. A while back, I read a book titled Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love by Helen E. Fisher. She talks about chemical happenings in the brain, sociology, and evolutionary benefits/explanations of why we feel attraction, and the different ways in which we experience attraction. It was a very interesting book. It was understandable, because she was aiming at a wide audience, and she throws in quotes of literary figures along the way. Worth taking a look at.

  9. Ummm…I’m sorry I’m still lost wm d. Monogamy is seen on many branches of the evolutionary tree and so are family units. Are you talking about social evoultion vs. biological evolution? Because I can’t see any scientific basis for what you’re saying to have evolved genetically. And from a social standpoint, your comment seems counter-intuitive. Casual sex leads to less bonding between partners than children and a family would. And while I will agree that humans have a bit of an “extended” childhood, adults are defined in biology as being sexually mature. Meaning an individual reaches adulthood when they are capable of producing viable offspring. For most humans this is somewhere between the ages of 12 and 15.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.