Re: How come every new race isn't destroyed by inbreeding?

From: Brett Aubrey (brett.aubrey_at_shaw.ca)
Date: 01/03/05 

Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:59:33 +0000 (UTC)

"deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:craha1$1hoi$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> "Brett Aubrey" <brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:cr4gkm$2kf0$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > "deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:cr2nlk$259n$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> >> <syvanen@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:cqvso8$1a1e$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> >> >>" BTW, if we take
> >> >> the 200,000 year figure, she was assuredly not Homo sapiens
> >> >> sapien. But since I think your premise is flawed that the first
> >> >> human was having children with non-humans, let's at least
> >> >> not call them sub-human (she's your ancestor too!)"
> >> > Don't think we can say she was not homo sapien. I once heard that if
> >> > we could resurrect homo erectus (1 mya) give him a clean shave, a new
> >> > suit and place him on the subway, he would likely pass as human.
> >>
> >> The Genus name says that he is human.
> >
> > It's not so cut and dried as genus, it seems to me and Merriam Webster:
> > Human: Function: noun
> > : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly :
> > any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to
> > which the primate belongs
> > Regards, Brett.
>
> Your points didn't negate what I said. If anything it expanded on it.
> Anything in Homo is said to be human on the bases of the name alone. I
doubt
> if most people in anthro think apiths were human.

Well, you said it was the genus name that says it's human (period). I just
pointed out that depending on the reference and the context, it can be the
genus name that says he is human, or the species name, or the family name,
or maybe even the sub-species name. I don't view that as an expansion of
your point as much as simply giving the term "human" a much broader range of
definitions than just a member of Genus Homo, in line with my experience and
(in this case) M-W Online. But feel free to think of it as an expansion, if
you so wish.

To me it was a natural follow-on to my question to the initial poster:
    BTW, what is your definition of "human" - any Homo
   sapiens sapien? any Homo sapien? any of genus Homo?

Regards, Brett.

<snip>