Isolated Human Population: A New Species?

  • Thread starter Thread starter leroyjenkens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Human population
AI Thread Summary
The classification of an isolated human population as a different species hinges on the definition of 'species,' which lacks consensus. The Biological Species Concept, which defines a species as a group of interbreeding organisms, suggests that if this population cannot breed with outsiders, they would be classified as a separate species. However, this definition poses challenges for paleontologists studying extinct species, as they cannot test breeding capabilities. The concept of species is often misunderstood, particularly in discussions about dog breeds, where physical differences do not necessarily correlate with reproductive compatibility. The ability to produce viable offspring is crucial for species classification, as seen in hybrids like ligers and mules, which are infertile despite being the result of interspecies breeding. This definition generally applies well to animals but becomes complicated in plants due to human intervention.
leroyjenkens
Messages
615
Reaction score
49
If there was an isolated human population that eventually became unable to breed with any humans outside of their population, would they become classified as a different species than us?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
That depends on your definition of 'species,' which isn't at all agreed upon.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept#Definitions_of_species
The "Biological Species concept" defines a species as a group of interbreeding organisms, so according to this group of thought, yes--they would be classified as a different species.

The biological species concept is (possibly) the most popular... to answer your question more simply: yeah, I guess so--but not everyone would agree.
 
As it was put to me, one major difficulty with the breeding capability definition of species is for Palaeontologists dealing with ancient species. Clearly, they cannot apply such a test and thus have to use different criteria. For modern species, breeding capability is the usual definition, but it is a much misunderstood point. I have often seen people talk about breeds of dogs, and the impracticality of a very large dog cross-breeding with a toy breed. But that is not the point. It is all a simple question of whether a gamete of one sex from one organism can fuse with a gamete of the other sex from another organism to produce a viable zygote. That is a matter of how well the chromosomes match up, and is not necessarily indicated by obvious physical differences in the parent organisms, however extreme.

There is also, of course a further subtlety around so-called ‘hybrid’ species. Famously it is possible to cross a lion and a tiger, which certainly does prove that, in evolutionary terms, their divergence was relatively recent. However, the Liger is necessarily infertile – its gametes will fuse with nothing, not even that of another Liger. Likewise for mules and various other hybrid species. So the key for definition as the same species is that gametes from each can produce a viable zygote that can develop into a fertile adult. That definition works pretty well for animal species, but even that is much more open to being undermined by the realities of what is possible with the intervention of human kind when it comes to plant species.
 
Popular article referring to the BA.2 variant: Popular article: (many words, little data) https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/health/ba-2-covid-severity/index.html Preprint article referring to the BA.2 variant: Preprint article: (At 52 pages, too many words!) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.14.480335v1.full.pdf [edited 1hr. after posting: Added preprint Abstract] Cheers, Tom
Back
Top