Do Modern Humans have Subspecies? #Demographics #Genetics #DNA

Do modern humans have subspecies? This is a very contentious topic in the realm of demographics, genetics and DNA but it doesn't have to be. When looking at the definition of subspecies accepted by most anthropologists then the answer would be an emphatic and obvious yes! But yeah, anyways our species has different subspecies that are sometimes used synonymously with races, but not always. In it's broadest categorization, you could divide between Sub-Saharan Africans and all non-African human populations as subspecies, although some go even further and say that Neanderthal, Denisovan and other extinct hominid cousins of ours shouldn't be considered separate species but rather subspecies of homo sapiens. Again, a lot of this really just comes down to semantics or the willful ignorance to conform to an ideological agenda, which is very annoying. Please donate guys, I could really use some help. Big thanks to the few people who donated over the past few months. I really appreciate it, but I could use whatever at the moment. Thanks for watching!

Link if you would like to donate:
Thanks

[fungalcoffee]

Welcome to the mine field, I hope you enjoy your stay.

[RobertEdwardJohnsonLetsTry-nb]

Before the Clinton Administration took over the human genome project from GHWBush, there was an article in Science that showed that most non-sub-Saharan races weren't that different from each other, except for sub-Saharan Africans, who in turn were so different from each other that there were six different sub-species. Naturally, once the Clinton Admin got involved, both Celera Genomics and the Cold Harbor Federal Government study headed by Eric Lander said there were NO significant differences between ANY previously recognized races, despite the fact that Luigi Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford long ago had a spreadsheet showing correlation coefficients genetically speaking between various ethnic groups, and we now can get VERY specific going back 5 generations, 50 generations, etc. .

[bearcatben]

Subspecies not really existing is the problem. We define species by their capacity to breed with each other, and even that is tenuous considering viable hybrids. Trying to classify animals on a level lower than species comes to non universal and subjective traits very quickly

[thehoodlen]

I feel humans are more akin to breeds than subspecies. A lot that we perceive as differences are only phenotypical

[joze]

When I studied evolutionary biology in my Master's I gave this a lot of thought and I would say: humans are for the most part a ring species as the connection between the different clusters is almost fluent and there was a decent amount of gene flow between the Arab world and Sub-Saharan Africa. Even though in the least human way possible, this proved species regonition between these groups. We can also see "inter-racial" marriages today. However, if we go to the extrem ends of the destribution, it is almost unthinkable that an Inuit or a central European would marry into and therefore integrate into koi-san hunter gatherer society or vize versa. Geneflow is very unlikely across larger genetic distances in humans. Here I mean large as in Japanese-pygmen not Japanese-French. Also I beleave the Adamanese islanders are such a special case, that I would argue the one part of them that is completely separated from the outside world could be called its own subspecies or even species - as they might not see us as humans.

[somehowstillhere]

The reason why different races aren’t officially considered as subspecies of human is politics. In the modern world denoting another being that can speak a human language as a different creature is too far for Western governments and institutions.

[MrBudPuphin]

Are different breeds of dogs considered to be subspecies of dog?

[yaitz]

Scientifically speaking, humans actually have quite low genetic differences between groupings. In most species, the genetic differences between groups (subspecies) is greater then the genetic differences between individuals within those groups; for humans, the genetic differences between individuals within a racial category heavily outweigh the genetic differences between racial categories. This is why Homo sapiens is not considered to have subspecies.

[Amuzic]

I think this idea of avoiding or ignoring scientific classification for political correctness is dangerous. Not looking into something real for the apprehension of causing division or inciting conflict is more dangerous than accepting that there are few differences and also the fact that there are more similarities and then celebrating both with an open mind. I am an Indian, so obviously I am a result of thousands of years of mix of possibly all those subspecies/races, and in our society we celebrate both the differences as well as the similarities. I find it incredibly outlandish to not discuss the differences in order to avoid possible awkward discussions.

[airl]

Usually when people talk about human subspecies, its with reference to the proximity of archaic humans to modern humans (e.g., should we classify Neanderthals as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis).

[Alex_Plante]

I disagree. There is very little genetic variation between humans, even from different so-called "races", much less than for most mammals. Maybe 100, 000 years ago you could consider Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans and the ghost population recently discovered in Africa as subspecies of humans, but they separated 600k to 650 k years ago, and although they could interbreed, there was apparent fertilility issues and non-Homo Sapiens genes have been selected against since the interbreeding took place.

[Anne-otgq]

Big important part here, genetically distinguishable. Humans do not vary enough in genetics to count as a sub species. The genetic variation between two races is less than the genetic variation found within the races themselves. There are no unique genetic traits that cant be found in every other race. We look different because of environmental adaptations, which can happen extremely quickly.

[dartmart]

Hmm. Another perfect example of how it is sometimes (others would say often) impossible to separate Science from the political expediency of the time.

[adammarktaylor]

The idea that Neanderthals are a subspecies of Homo Sapiens kinda went away in serious academia when the Neanderthal genome was sequenced.

[cimmerian_savage]

With recent genetic studies, it shows that humans should be grouped into subspecies. Their's plenty of information that shows we have big differences between groups, mostly with immune system, skeletal morphology, neurological development, and even sperm mobility.
Also with the various different archaic human admixture unique to each race.

[alexandereick]

Humans have a very low degree of genetic diversity within the species so the criteria for real subspecies probably isn’t met. Also it would require a long period without interbreeding which just has not happened on the right time scale to be evolutionarily significant.

[yoshiak]

Muito obrigado por dublar esse vídeo para português. Sou um grande fã do seu canal a anos.

[martychisnall]

Yes, and I don’t care if people accuse me of “scientific racism”.

[chronometer]

I also came to this conclusion. There are species of ape for example are classified for having far less distinctiveness than humans. It's hypocritical to think this wouldn't apply to humans.

[pixelfiend]

Honestly even different ethnicities of the same race are probably genetically different enough to be akin to different dog breeds.