Can people be classified in subspecies?

[Gamdwelf]

Despite having different appearances, all humans belong to the same species. We are not different enough to be classed as "subspecies".

The closest applicable term might be breed. Though even that may imply a greater diversity than actually exists.

Yeah it seems Europeans and east Asians have more neanderthal DNA than Africans which have like zero that's how we know we inter breed. If we separated and never interbreed the difference in the DNA would not be different between the geographical regions.

[Helgrimm]

There's more diversity between peoples of Africa, than some African peoples and Europeans. Subspecies are more differentiated than just looking a little different. All humans are a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Our subspecies is "homo sapiens sapiens"

Also wtf do you really want to open the door to racist interpretation after all this progress? What is wrong with you.

I'm just in a quest for knowledge; no racism intended here.

[Gamdwelf]

Most everyone is mixed anyway. I'm half Hispanic (Dominican, which makes me part black), half European (Norwegian and Italian). Wtf subspecies would I be??

Homo sapien sapien like all other living humans.

[Independent voter]

Homis floridensis.

[Gamdwelf]

I feel like the best chance of crating a new human sub-species is people on Mars.

[Ryme]

there is no such thing as race in humans

our race is human
"race" is just a social construct

if a person is acting as if "race" matters that person is not a racist that person is a retard
if a person calls another human "racist" that person calling them racist is a retard

in human history your "race" use to refer to what language you spoke

That's a nice concept, but it's important to remember that there are general differences between people of different races, this is particularly pronounced in cultures that haven't interacted much in thousands of years such as the australoid people.

It's important to remember that this not exact, but to deny it exists altogether is disingenuous. Beyond that, there are clear and unequivocal genetic differences between what most people would accept as the socially constructed races.

At any rate, these differences are not enough to warrant the inclusion of sub species labels, so no OP they can't.

[Deleted]

Despite having different appearances, all humans belong to the same species. We are not different enough to be classed as "subspecies".

The closest applicable term might be breed. Though even that may imply a greater diversity than actually exists.

One could say that tibetans are a genetically different sub-species due to having physical characteristics that go beyond aesthetics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-a...tion_in_humans

[Kraenen]

I feel like the best chance of crating a new human sub-species is people on Mars.

Would take hundreds of thousands of years for natural evolution wouldn't it? Or we might invent some gene manipulation that helps people adapt to Mars' environment

[Endus]

That's a nice concept, but it's important to remember that there are general differences between people of different races, this is particularly pronounced in cultures that haven't interacted much in thousands of years such as the australoid people.

It's important to remember that this not exact, but to deny it exists altogether is disingenuous. Beyond that, there are clear and unequivocal genetic differences between what most people would accept as the socially constructed races.

At any rate, these differences are not enough to warrant the inclusion of sub species labels, so no OP they can't.

Those differences are not fundamentally different from the differences between different families. If my family has a history of hemophilia, and yours doesn't, then we're identifiably different based on a characteristic, even if we're both Anglo-Saxon, ethnically speaking.

Human racial differences are no different. Some branches of our collective family are just more distantly related than others, but we're all part of the same extended family. The differences really aren't that significant. Bringing up things like the predisposition to sickle-cell anemia among African-Americans is a nonsequitur, because it's like looking at the predisposition towards red hair among some European ethnicities. It's not universal, and it's just a family heritage thing, not a significant variance.

[Annoying]

Well, technically yes. The guy who defined the term "species" as we use it today (Ernst Mayr) used "subspecies" and "geographic race" interchangeably in his writings.

Here's a pretty good example where he goes into detail about their scientific meanings:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html

Specifically:

A human race consists of the descendants of a once-isolated geographical population primarily adapted for the environmental conditions of their original home country.

and:

Geographical groups of humans, what biologists call races, tend to differ from each other in mean differences and sometimes even in specific single genes. But when it comes to the capacities that are required for the optimal functioning of our society, I am sure that the performance of any individual in any racial group can be matched by that of some individual in another racial group. This is what a population analysis reveals.

[TheImperios]

So I've been thinking, considering the definition of subspecies, couldn't you consider african americans, and say, nordic peoples separate subspecies? Why is this confined to just non-human animals? Is race some PC definition of our differences?

Am I wrong on this? please enlighten.

Nordic people? Definitely not. They have barely anything that sets them apart from the rest of Europeans, and the rest of Europeans apart from Middle Easterners.

African Americans? Again not. They are not even a race per se as much as a mixture of races - European and African - that is - and of course a culture, and an identity.

Races? In the past perhaps. Subspecies are usually isolated from each other; they either diverge so much that they become unable to breed with each other and become separate species, or, if their isolation is broken, unite and interbreed. The second scenario is the case with humanity.

[Annoying]

Races? In the past perhaps. Subspecies are usually isolated from each other; they either diverge so much that they become unable to breed with each other and become separate species, or, if their isolation is broken, unite and interbreed. The second scenario is the case with humanity.

Bolded part: That's what delineates species, so it wouldn't count as a subspecies.

A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction.

[Gisthul]

One could say that tibetans are a genetically different sub-species due to having physical characteristics that go beyond aesthetics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-a...tion_in_humans

Just a rapid adaptation to the environment to form a single deviated trait from the other populations isn't nearly enough to consider them as a sub-species. Besides, this is a study in a single trait while every population has being receiving selective pressure and have led to divergent traits - characteristics.

[Theodarzna]

It would be hard to do in a way that has anything resembling biological sense.

Many culturally similar groups are surprisingly not genetically similar.

[Deleted]

Human beings are not only not separated by race; we are actually extremely similar to each other.

There's very little variance in human genetics, less than most other species.

I know that sounds weird, because a black person looks very different to a chinese person, or a scandinavian, but it's true.

There's less difference between any of us than there is between two chimpanzees, and many other species, including such unlikely candidates as fruit flies.

This is probably because we all are actually quite closely related. We all descend from a relatively small human population that nearly went extinct.

We're only good at differentiating between human "races" and "individuals" because we are attuned to extremely minor differences in appearance in our own species.

We cannot see differences between individuals of other species as easily, not even dogs or cats that we see a lot, let alone other species like giraffes that we see very seldom.

The implication is, to an alien, a norwegian and a kenyan would look more alike than 2 chimpanzees from the London Zoo.

[TheImperios]

Bolded part: That's what delineates species, so it wouldn't count as a subspecies.

You misunderstood me. That is why I said "become separate species". The fate of the two subspecies is either diverge completely or merge.

[Deleted]

Well Caucasians and Asians are sub species of neanderthalians

or are hybrids not a subspecies of the parent race(s)?