Homo sapiens

[Jonathan Jarvis]

Is there any evidence around that other species of hominids evolved after Homo sapiens. Or are we the last species of humans to evolve?

I have had a look around Wikipedia but the references stop with Homo sapiens.

 

[Shemjaza]

Is there any evidence around that other species of hominids evolved after Homo sapiens. Or are we the last species of humans to evolve?

I have had a look around Wikipedia but the references stop with Homo sapiens.

Well, we are the last man standing... but I'm not sure it's known which species was the last Homo to evolve.

Not long agon on a geological scale there were at least four types of human:
Us, the Neanderthals, the Denisovans and Homo floresiensis.

While all the humans today are basically much like Homo sapiens have always been, many of us have some Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestors as well.

 

[Linuxgal]

Is there any evidence around that other species of hominids evolved after Homo sapiens. Or are we the last species of humans to evolve?

I have had a look around Wikipedia but the references stop with Homo sapiens.

I am a member of the species Femina Caelestis (Star Woman), but it hasn't been accepted for Wikipedia yet.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Simply different breeds within the same kind - like what we have seen in a few generations with dogs and cats, and billions with bacteria.

 

[lesliedellow]

Is there any evidence around that other species of hominids evolved after Homo sapiens. Or are we the last species of humans to evolve?

I have had a look around Wikipedia but the references stop with Homo sapiens.

We are the sole surviving species of the genus homo, unless the abominable snowman is for real.

 

[dgiharris]

Well, we are the last man standing... but I'm not sure it's known which species was the last Homo to evolve.

Not long agon on a geological scale there were at least four types of human:
Us, the Neanderthals, the Denisovans and Homo floresiensis.

While all the humans today are basically much like Homo sapiens have always been, many of us have some Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestors as well.

Yeah, for the longest time it was assumed/believed that one form of Homo whatever would wipe out the other form of Homo whatever.

however, recently (the last 20 - 30 years) someone came up with the theory that various species of Homo (like Neanderthals) were probably bred to extinction and merely absorbed by the larger party.

In the case of Neanderthals, I saw an interesting documentary that made a compelling argument that Homo Sapiens looked close enough to Neanderthals that we would have bred with them. This theory also seemed to do a better job of matching facts and filling in gaps of missing data.

 

[Strathos]

I think we've found that most humans outside of Africa have Neanderthal DNA

 

[Shemjaza]

Yeah, for the longest time it was assumed/believed that one form of Homo whatever would wipe out the other form of Homo whatever.

however, recently (the last 20 - 30 years) someone came up with the theory that various species of Homo (like Neanderthals) were probably bred to extinction and merely absorbed by the larger party.

In the case of Neanderthals, I saw an interesting documentary that made a compelling argument that Homo Sapiens looked close enough to Neanderthals that we would have bred with them. This theory also seemed to do a better job of matching facts and filling in gaps of missing data.

The genetic evidence also supports the hypothesis of Neanderthals as hardier, but slower breeding and having a smaller population for each band being absorbed into the Homo sapiens in Europe and the middle east.

Simply different breeds within the same kind - like what we have seen in a few generations with dogs and cats, and billions with bacteria.

Exactly. All the Homo species are closely related with a reasonably recent common ancestor. They are all much more similar to each other then then are to apes.

In the example dogs are also related to each other more then to coyotes, but they are still all canines.

Humans and Neanderthals are both: animal kind, tetrapod kind, mammal kind, primate kind and hominid kind

 

[Split Rock]

Simply different breeds within the same kind - like what we have seen in a few generations with dogs and cats, and billions with bacteria.

Bacteria are all one "kind?" You do realize that there are about two dozen bacterial phyla, and 35 classes that you are claiming are all one "kind," right?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Simply different breeds within the same kind - like what we have seen in a few generations with dogs and cats, and billions with bacteria.

If you generalize kind that much, it would be like saying humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gurillas are the same species.

 

[dgiharris]

If you generalize kind that much, it would be like saying humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gurillas are the same species.

what is scary is that Russia tried to interbred humans and gorillas during WWI (tons of documentaries on this).

Their thinking was that they could raise an army that was gorilla strong but human smart.

Ironically, there'd be the same odds of creating an army that was human strong but gorilla smart

I would think you could probably cross breed humans with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans ESPECIALLY with medical technology today. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it has already happened in a lab somewhere deep underground...

 

[JustMeSee]

Is there any evidence around that other species of hominids evolved after Homo sapiens. Or are we the last species of humans to evolve?

I have had a look around Wikipedia but the references stop with Homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens sapiens are evolving. Are there homo sapiens somewhere else still evolving?
I don't know.

 

[Shemjaza]

Homo sapiens sapiens are evolving. Are there homo sapiens somewhere else still evolving?
I don't know.

Sure we are evolving... but unless genetic engineering advances a whole lot in the next few centuries and society gets a whole lot weirder, I don't see us needing to classify a new breed of homo.

 

[durangodawood]

Homo sapiens sapiens are evolving. Are there homo sapiens somewhere else still evolving?
I don't know.

Yes. Us.

 

[diychristian]

I'm starting to question the whole nomenclature used define what a creature is. It is after all a man made system. Couldn't one refine it more and more until we have an infinitesimal number of species. The line between species is drawn by mankind and its own presuppositions (some of them quite dubious). What is in a species?

 

[Belk]

I'm starting to question the whole nomenclature used define what a creature is. It is after all a man made system. Couldn't one refine it more and more until we have an infinitesimal number of species. The line between species is drawn by mankind and its own presuppositions (some of them quite dubious). What is in a species?

The same as every other classification system ever devised.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm starting to question the whole nomenclature used define what a creature is. It is after all a man made system. Couldn't one refine it more and more until we have an infinitesimal number of species. The line between species is drawn by mankind and its own presuppositions (some of them quite dubious). What is in a species?

Seriously? You cant just look this up for yourself?

The category "species" isnt perfect. But its generally sensible, dont you think (now that youve looked it up)?

 

[diychristian]

Seriously? You cant just look this up for yourself?

The category "species" isnt perfect. But its generally sensible, dont you think (now that youve looked it up)?

I think my point is being missed. I am aware of the general definitions of species. My point is it is our attempt at defining a creature. A creature that didnt grow up with Linnaean parameters to conform to. Instead, it was the other way around. I don't disagree with an attempt to name specimens, but I believe it is arrogant to assume that everything will line up so well with our models. Also...our system to name these creatures shouldn't conform to a model,but to the very subjects being named (nature). I ended my last post with the question, "what is in a species?", not out of ignorance but to point out it is us who construct the definition of "species". So to ask the difference in groups of species is to assume the groupings exist in nature. Nature may see no discernible difference between two groups.

 

[durangodawood]

I think my point is being missed. I am aware of the general definitions of species. My point is it is our attempt at defining a creature. A creature that didnt grow up with Linnaean parameters to conform to. Instead, it was the other way around. I don't disagree with an attempt to name specimens, but I believe it is arrogant to assume that everything will line up so well with our models. Also...our system to name these creatures shouldn't conform to a model,but to the very subjects being named (nature). I ended my last post with the question, "what is in a species?", not out of ignorance but to point out it is us who construct the definition of "species". So to ask the difference in groups of species is to assume the groupings exist in nature. Nature may see no discernible difference between two groups.

I think the genetic lineage of the various species is VERY telling.

As for individual species, grouping life forms by their ability to reproduce with each other successfully is entirely meaningful.

 

[Split Rock]

Hi diychristian

I'm starting to question the whole nomenclature used define what a creature is. It is after all a man made system. Couldn't one refine it more and more until we have an infinitesimal number of species. The line between species is drawn by mankind and its own presuppositions (some of them quite dubious). What is in a species?

You bring up a some very good points. Our nomenclature system is a man-made attempt to classify a natural order that was not designed as a system at all. Nature does not create Classes or Orders, nor even Species. However, a species is important to biologists because it is a breeding population that shares genetic material and should also be isolated genetically from other such populations. Thus they follow a different evolutionary path from other species. That is the ideal scenario, but nature is rarely ideal. Populations are also in flux genetically and not all species actually sexually reproduce (or only do so sometimes). Some species can interbred under some circumstances but are normally isolated from each other. It is complicated.