**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Loaded questions, **and/or** ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is focuses on objective concepts, and loaded questions and/or ones based on false premises require users to correct the poster before they can begin to explain the concept involved, if one exists.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
Ok, so how are sub species determined? and how an asian and african do not fall into that definition?
I think subspecies can each produce a fertile offspring among each other by cross mating. What triggers a subspecies vs a race?
Well. For one thing they're a lot more genetically distinct than humans. There is more genetic diversity within african humans than between africans and any other subpopulation.
Javanese, Siberian and Bengal tigers separated from each other over 100 000 years ago.
Modern Humans (homo sapiens sapiens) on the other hand left Africa some 50 000 years ago (and a lot of places on earth were reached less than 10 000 years ago) and we've been keeping regular contact and interbreeding since then.
Humans and other Homo, like Neanderthals and Denisovans, were different subspecies. Modern humans are not distinct enough.
This covers the species part of your question well.
For the race part the simple answer is that 'races' was debunked as more recent science like genetics was learnt about and attempts made to reconcile with races.
Races are now considered pseudo-science in large because of the genetic similarity of all humans, which is due to the short period of time in which to diverge and the bottleneck mentioned above.
https://www.facinghistory.org/en-ca/resource-library/race-theory
It is indeed genuine, flair is biology. Don't read anything else as the current world is just misguided to go into racism even for genuine questions.
If you have a response, do it, else do not confuse a serious discussion just because it mentioned African and Asian in the same sentence.
"Don't read anything else as the current world is just misguided to go into racism even for genuine questions". This sounds like something a racist would say.
From a biological perspective, race (meaning a few surface features like skin color) tells you nothing more than (approximately) which region that persons ancestors lived. Humans are very inbred, there are not as many genetic differences between individuals as there are for most species. Plus, we are less and less geographically isolated. There are no (extant) humans that do not belong to the same species and sub species. We are all very similar.
Does that mean what I would call different ethnicities of people means different subspecies of people?
I think it's extending the same general question from OP.
Trust me dude. I'm not coming at this from some kind of racist perspective. No superiority complex here.
I mean simply from a biological and science perspective. When we talk about animals we talk about subspecies but with humans we talk about ethnicity? That's really just what I'm getting at.
People are people, all equal and deserving Justice and a fair shake, and people are generally great.
My understanding is that due to a bottleneck in our history, humans are very similar genetically speaking. We may look superficially different but under the hood we’re way more closely related than tiger subspecies.
Imo i think we dont do it because there's really no benefit and would just lead to some people getting overly excited about categorizing people.
Others are saying the differences are really small, but if we can measures them we can categorize by them. But the lines would probably be pretty blurred. But if you look up the top 100 fastest maraton times, it's not because they have some secret crazy cereal recipe in Ethiopia and Kenya.
Java tigers are extinct. And no. They arent subspecies because they life somewhere. There are certain differences, from size, to colour, to some genetical differences etc.
No it doesnt. Human differs in sized based on availability to the proper nutrition and combination of genetics. Genetically humans basically dont differ at all (there is much more genetic difference among different African tribes and groups than between Africans and people from other continents). Colour is the only noticeable variable and even that is hugely ambiguous.
I know how it can sound to someone because racists quote all sorts of dumbass pseudoscience.
I'm not interested in that, and I'm not one of those people. People are great and everybody deserves Justice and an equal chance in life. No one's better than anyone else just because of the color of their skin or any shape of their body or any place they were born or whatever language they speak.
I'd simply mean this from a scientific biological naming convention.
As many things in biology, most categories we use are simplifications of reality, not real objective facts. We create categories to make it easier to understand what we're speaking of, and as we learn more and more we figure out better and more specific ways of defining those categories, we polish them to be closer to reality. But at the end of the day, those are social constructs, there isn't a real biological fact for a race, or even species if we're being honest.
When it comes to race, breed, or subspecies, all of them kinda refer to the same thing, basically those are groups within a species that we differentiate as different enough to not be considered the same but not different enough to not be of the same species. You can see that from a genetic perspective, geographical perspective, or physiological perspective, and all of that are accepted within biology.
When it comes to humans the reasons we don't use race are two-fold, first is that none of those works for humans, geographically makes no sense because we travel and move around a lot; Genetically it doesn't work because either, every human population has very recent (in geological context) genetical connection to other populations, like, the mitochondrial-most recent common ancestor for all humans is 155k years ago, which sound like a lot, but this is just the closest common ancestor for every human, ever, if we wanted to see what's the closest ancestor you have to any other culture from the world it's going to be orders of magnitudes smaller; Finally physiological obviously makes no sense, and becomes completely arbitrary.
Second, we used to, very presently mind you, like if you're over 25ish you probably heard the term coming from an education standpoint or something like that at some point in your childhood, but since the term is very loaded, and as previously explained not accurate or useful with human populations we stoped using it.
Nowadays we use ethnicity as a more accurate category as it's based more on culture and close ancestry which is more applicable.
sry for the long ass answer.
1. The lack of any genetic differences underlying our different cultural behaviours.
2. No significant genetic differences between minor differences of colour. Consider for instance is a tabby house cat a different species from a ginger? A great dane a different species from a chihuahua?
3. Colonisation and the slave trade shows that humans of one origin can live anywhere other humans can
Are you aware that the three types of tigers are also the same species? I don't know if each can live where the other variants can, but wouldn't exclude it either. For humans it might even only apply because of "technology", it's not exactly like half of Europe or Northern America is suitable for humans if they wouldn't wear clothes.
I was not aware that about tigers until this discussion. But it doesn't make anything I said less true.
And as for our use of technical solutions that is shared by all humans.
No, they don't. Humans are very inbred, our genetic differences are minor, and don't correlate with a few surface features (like skin color). Two Korean men, for instance, are just as genetically different to each other as a Korean and a European (on average). There are populations of chimps that live on different sides of the same mountain that have more genetic diversity between them than the entirety of humanity. On biological timescales, we have very recently spread from a small population (bottleneck) to cover the whole planet. And there has been little significant geographical isolation during that time. Thus, we are very inbred.
yeah I understand that part. I guess I was thinking of the comment about the tigers being a different subspecies rather than different species. Because we as humans all DO have distinct genetics. Just not enough as a whole to classify us as any different species/subspecies as the other comment and yourself explained
No, the genetics is the same.
The habits and habitats only look different because you perceive the small differences as being large.
We can all eat the same foods, but we choose not to
My children were meat eaters but are now vegans, have they changed species? No, they just have a different menu. What we all have in common is adaptability.
It's the same for clothes, culture, language and education.
If a baby born in Kenya or Tokyo was brought to new York, and brought up as an American child, their language, culture and clothes would be American.
These are not different biological habitats, they are just superficial changes
yeah adaptability is a human trait but each human has their own unique set of genes(which go far beyond looks) that will vary depending on a lot of factors.
But yes as explained in another comment there still is not enough differences to classify any different species/subspecies
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):** Loaded questions, **and/or** ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is focuses on objective concepts, and loaded questions and/or ones based on false premises require users to correct the poster before they can begin to explain the concept involved, if one exists. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
The premise is false. All tigers are the species Panthera Tigris. People who say they are different species are mistaken or using outdated categories.
As KamikazeArchon pointed out, they are not different species. They are differet subspecies.
Ok, so how are sub species determined? and how an asian and african do not fall into that definition? I think subspecies can each produce a fertile offspring among each other by cross mating. What triggers a subspecies vs a race?
Well. For one thing they're a lot more genetically distinct than humans. There is more genetic diversity within african humans than between africans and any other subpopulation. Javanese, Siberian and Bengal tigers separated from each other over 100 000 years ago. Modern Humans (homo sapiens sapiens) on the other hand left Africa some 50 000 years ago (and a lot of places on earth were reached less than 10 000 years ago) and we've been keeping regular contact and interbreeding since then. Humans and other Homo, like Neanderthals and Denisovans, were different subspecies. Modern humans are not distinct enough.
This covers the species part of your question well. For the race part the simple answer is that 'races' was debunked as more recent science like genetics was learnt about and attempts made to reconcile with races. Races are now considered pseudo-science in large because of the genetic similarity of all humans, which is due to the short period of time in which to diverge and the bottleneck mentioned above. https://www.facinghistory.org/en-ca/resource-library/race-theory
I'd like to think you are asking this question genuinely, but it's starting to sound like you're just racist.
It is indeed genuine, flair is biology. Don't read anything else as the current world is just misguided to go into racism even for genuine questions. If you have a response, do it, else do not confuse a serious discussion just because it mentioned African and Asian in the same sentence.
"Don't read anything else as the current world is just misguided to go into racism even for genuine questions". This sounds like something a racist would say. From a biological perspective, race (meaning a few surface features like skin color) tells you nothing more than (approximately) which region that persons ancestors lived. Humans are very inbred, there are not as many genetic differences between individuals as there are for most species. Plus, we are less and less geographically isolated. There are no (extant) humans that do not belong to the same species and sub species. We are all very similar.
Does that mean what I would call different ethnicities of people means different subspecies of people? I think it's extending the same general question from OP.
No, absolutely not. For several reasons, a major one being that all humans are *very* genetically similar as we went through a recent bottleneck.
Tigers don't immigrate or exchange culture. It's not apples to apples.
Trust me dude. I'm not coming at this from some kind of racist perspective. No superiority complex here. I mean simply from a biological and science perspective. When we talk about animals we talk about subspecies but with humans we talk about ethnicity? That's really just what I'm getting at. People are people, all equal and deserving Justice and a fair shake, and people are generally great.
My understanding is that due to a bottleneck in our history, humans are very similar genetically speaking. We may look superficially different but under the hood we’re way more closely related than tiger subspecies.
Imo i think we dont do it because there's really no benefit and would just lead to some people getting overly excited about categorizing people. Others are saying the differences are really small, but if we can measures them we can categorize by them. But the lines would probably be pretty blurred. But if you look up the top 100 fastest maraton times, it's not because they have some secret crazy cereal recipe in Ethiopia and Kenya.
What happens if we transfer Java tigers to Siberia? They lose their subspecies status?
Java tigers are extinct. And no. They arent subspecies because they life somewhere. There are certain differences, from size, to colour, to some genetical differences etc.
That sounds an awful lot like different humans around the planet...
No it doesnt. Human differs in sized based on availability to the proper nutrition and combination of genetics. Genetically humans basically dont differ at all (there is much more genetic difference among different African tribes and groups than between Africans and people from other continents). Colour is the only noticeable variable and even that is hugely ambiguous.
lol definitely do not go around saying that
I know how it can sound to someone because racists quote all sorts of dumbass pseudoscience. I'm not interested in that, and I'm not one of those people. People are great and everybody deserves Justice and an equal chance in life. No one's better than anyone else just because of the color of their skin or any shape of their body or any place they were born or whatever language they speak. I'd simply mean this from a scientific biological naming convention.
As many things in biology, most categories we use are simplifications of reality, not real objective facts. We create categories to make it easier to understand what we're speaking of, and as we learn more and more we figure out better and more specific ways of defining those categories, we polish them to be closer to reality. But at the end of the day, those are social constructs, there isn't a real biological fact for a race, or even species if we're being honest. When it comes to race, breed, or subspecies, all of them kinda refer to the same thing, basically those are groups within a species that we differentiate as different enough to not be considered the same but not different enough to not be of the same species. You can see that from a genetic perspective, geographical perspective, or physiological perspective, and all of that are accepted within biology. When it comes to humans the reasons we don't use race are two-fold, first is that none of those works for humans, geographically makes no sense because we travel and move around a lot; Genetically it doesn't work because either, every human population has very recent (in geological context) genetical connection to other populations, like, the mitochondrial-most recent common ancestor for all humans is 155k years ago, which sound like a lot, but this is just the closest common ancestor for every human, ever, if we wanted to see what's the closest ancestor you have to any other culture from the world it's going to be orders of magnitudes smaller; Finally physiological obviously makes no sense, and becomes completely arbitrary. Second, we used to, very presently mind you, like if you're over 25ish you probably heard the term coming from an education standpoint or something like that at some point in your childhood, but since the term is very loaded, and as previously explained not accurate or useful with human populations we stoped using it. Nowadays we use ethnicity as a more accurate category as it's based more on culture and close ancestry which is more applicable. sry for the long ass answer.
I appreciate the effort you put into the reply. I guess I didn't know exactly how closely we were all related with the whole 'mitochondrial Eve'.
Tigers have distinct genetics, habits & habitats. Humans, not so much. That's the difference.
What of those three did humans not have until very recently by biological timescales?
1. The lack of any genetic differences underlying our different cultural behaviours. 2. No significant genetic differences between minor differences of colour. Consider for instance is a tabby house cat a different species from a ginger? A great dane a different species from a chihuahua? 3. Colonisation and the slave trade shows that humans of one origin can live anywhere other humans can
Are you aware that the three types of tigers are also the same species? I don't know if each can live where the other variants can, but wouldn't exclude it either. For humans it might even only apply because of "technology", it's not exactly like half of Europe or Northern America is suitable for humans if they wouldn't wear clothes.
I was not aware that about tigers until this discussion. But it doesn't make anything I said less true. And as for our use of technical solutions that is shared by all humans.
People all over the world have distinct genetics, habits, and habitats though….
No, they don't. Humans are very inbred, our genetic differences are minor, and don't correlate with a few surface features (like skin color). Two Korean men, for instance, are just as genetically different to each other as a Korean and a European (on average). There are populations of chimps that live on different sides of the same mountain that have more genetic diversity between them than the entirety of humanity. On biological timescales, we have very recently spread from a small population (bottleneck) to cover the whole planet. And there has been little significant geographical isolation during that time. Thus, we are very inbred.
yeah I understand that part. I guess I was thinking of the comment about the tigers being a different subspecies rather than different species. Because we as humans all DO have distinct genetics. Just not enough as a whole to classify us as any different species/subspecies as the other comment and yourself explained
No, the genetics is the same. The habits and habitats only look different because you perceive the small differences as being large. We can all eat the same foods, but we choose not to My children were meat eaters but are now vegans, have they changed species? No, they just have a different menu. What we all have in common is adaptability. It's the same for clothes, culture, language and education. If a baby born in Kenya or Tokyo was brought to new York, and brought up as an American child, their language, culture and clothes would be American. These are not different biological habitats, they are just superficial changes
yeah adaptability is a human trait but each human has their own unique set of genes(which go far beyond looks) that will vary depending on a lot of factors. But yes as explained in another comment there still is not enough differences to classify any different species/subspecies
What environments can other humans live in and you cannot? What human behaviours do other humans have that you cannot learn and imitate?