What could you argue are the factors/traits/markers of humans as biological species?
90700
Complex language systems?\nopposable thumbs!\nsex for fun not just conception!!
657805
DNA evidence. There's like 98% match between a human and a chimpansee.\n\nFossil record - they keep finding ancestors of modern species, which helps draw out the evolution tree.\n\nBacteria developing resistance to drugs.\n\nDifferent breeds of dogs, horses, agricultural plants and animals.
5794
Biotic factors are not only the organisms themselves, but also their relationship and effect on the surroundings. For example, forest soil aeration might be caused by worms living underground, which might help the trees grow better, etc.
259118
Humans ARE animals. We are a mammalian species of bipedal primates called "homo sapiens."\n\nMany people believe humans are separate from animals because of our superior intelligence, but I think intelligence is just a trait that every animal has, some more than others. Cheetahs and peregrine falcons are superior in speed, elephants and Kodiak bears are superior in strength, and squirrels and jaguars are superior in agility, for a few other examples of superiority. Just because we are capable of more things than other animals intellectually does not make us something foreign to the Animal Kingdom.
56028
Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.\n\nGender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.
567086
Human race is termed in reference to the sociological system while human species is in reference to the biological system.
842801
Biodiversity has contributed in many ways to the development of human culture, and, in turn, human communities have played a major role in shaping the diversity of nature at the genetic, species, and ecological levels.\n\nBiodiversity is what underlies many important ecological goods and services that provide benefits to humans.\n\nI have taken this straight from Wikipedia, there is much more useful information on the benefits of biodiversity to man at:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Benefits_of_biodiversity
35811
1) Genetic variation among members of a population\n2) Inheritance of characteristics (or variations)\n3) Natural selection (survival of the fittest)\n4) Time
872787
Factors determining sexual attraction to human males\nGustav Klimt's The Kiss (Klimt painting), oil on canvas, illustrates a couple sharing a kiss.\nEnlarge\nGustav Klimt's The Kiss (Klimt painting), oil on canvas, illustrates a couple sharing a kiss.\n\nThe initial attraction usually begins with the physical features of the human form and attire, and by a positive expression of the face and body.\n\nFor heterosexual and bisexual females as well as homosexual and bisexual males across the world, regardless of culture, the one near-universal trait of attractiveness for a man to have is a V-shaped torso: a relatively narrow waist offset with broad shoulders. While some cultures prefer their males huskier and others leaner, the rule of a V-shaped torso generally holds true.[citation needed]\n\nIt has been studied that women prefer more masculine men during the fertile period of the menstrual cycle and more feminine men during other parts of the cycle. Masculine facial features are characterized by a strong brow and a broad jaw while feminine features are less pronounced.\n\nIt is thought that sexual attractiveness of a man to some women is somewhat determined by the height of the man. In modern culture it is usually an importance that the male be at least slightly taller than the female for a long term relationship to form. Some women prefer that the man be at least a little above the average in height in the given population of males because it unconsciously seems to them as a sign of dominance and masculinity. Although height is one aspect of male to male dominance as men mature this aspect becomes less so. Height says very little about one's health and fitness in most cases in areas of the world where the vast majority of people reach their genetic growth potential.\n\nThose who believe that the muscular contour of a male is attractive will choose males with well-defined muscles. Males who make use of their hormone, testosterone through exercise or bodybuilding techniques typically find themselves more attractive as their muscles take shape.\n\nAt various times in history and throughout various cultures and sub-cultures the growth, maintenance and display of facial or body hair produced as a by-product of testosterone activity within male bodies has been considered a primary characteristic of sexual attractiveness, and of a display of masculinity in general. Cultural development seems to oscillate through multi-generational cycles from one pole to another: extreme hair growth, especially of facial hair accompanied by elaborate grooming rituals is often followed within a couple of generations by a widespread antipathy to body hair and the widespread adoption of depilatory practices.\n\nThe causal mechanism for this oscillation has not been established but differences in the simultaneous characterization of body hair attractiveness within a culture between different social classes may indicate that the dynamic force driving the diffusion of differing male body hair social practices is in fact mate selection by females.
886957
You’re probably asking yourself why we spent so much time on HWE since it never happens in the real world. Why did I spend time on this?\n\nIt provides us with a baseline or null model to assess the impacts of different factors (each eliminated by one of the assumptions)\n\nIE\nThe organism is diploid\nReproduction is sexual\nGenerations are non-overlapping\nMating is random\ndoes not allow inbreeding and assortative mating\nPopulation size is very large\nremoves sampling error (genetic drift)\nMigration is negligible\nMutation can be ignored\nNatural selection does not affect the allele in question
139354
All great answers.\nIt is nearly impossible to determine race.  \n\nAnalyzing DNA in a petri dish you would be able to determine probably eye color, probably hair color, and some other identifying informaton. But not race. You could link to some degree of certainty the sample to a known population, but not with enough specifity to hold up in court.\n\nIn general, we as a species are all very similar. Distinct culture and populations have some unique traits that repeat due to the closed nature of that society but as a species we work out genetically to be quite the same. \n\nThink of it this way. If an alien came to Earth, took random samples of people from all over, they would conclude we are all the same. That any variations in structure or color must be normal variety in the genome.
355877
There are two types of traits - Qualitative and quantitative.\n\nQuantitative traits are the ones which can be counted - e.g. your blood pressure, or your height etc, the size of the lumen of your aorta.\n\nQualitative traits are the ones which cannot be counted per se- e.g. the color of ur eyes, shape of your face, how good you feel, how successful you are, etc. However you can try to get surrogate measures for counting qualitative traits. For e.g. you can quantify how good you feel by determining the serotonin levels in the relevant parts of your brain, or something like that.
428487
We are "Homo Sapiens Sapiens"... note that there are 2 Sapiens there, it is not a misprint.\n\nOther species of 'Primates' are not classified as 'Human' because they do not match the structure and development of what we now know as human.\n\nRealise that genetics are not the sole reason for choosing what is human (a banana ia actually 50% same as human in genetics). What defines a human is also the capability for commuicating with other humans, determining right from wrong, and operating in a way that other humans operate.\n\nContrary to popular belief, We are in no way descended from Neanderthals, they are a seperate branch of the evolutionary ladder. We are also not descended from monkeys, they are also a seperate branch. As such our ability to breed with such creatures is impossible... it is like mating a dog and a dolphin (which are very close on the evolutionary ladder).\n\nWe are descended from a now extinct group.\n\nThe question you should be asking is how far back do we go before we are no longer called human?
474165
Humans, or human beings, are classified as bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species of animal.\n\nLike most primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from nations to individual families, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, rituals, traditions, values, laws, and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans also have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.\n\nHumans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythology. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies. It has also led to the exploration of spiritual concepts such as the soul and deities, and has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities.\n\nHumans are commonly referred to as persons or people, and collectively as man, mankind, humankind, humanity, or the human race. Until the 20th century, human was only used adjectivally ("pertaining to mankind"). As an adjective, "human" is used neutrally (as in "human race"), but "human" and especially "humane" may also emphasize positive aspects of human nature, and can be synonymous with "benevolent" (as opposed to "inhumane"; cf. humanitarian).\n\nIn general, the word people is a collective noun used to define a specific group of humans. However, when used to refer to a group of humans possessing a common ethnic, cultural or national unitary characteristic or identity, "people" is a singular noun, and as such takes an "s" in the plural; (examples: "the English-speaking peoples of the world", "the indigenous peoples of Brazil"). A distinction is also maintained in philosophy and law between the notions "human being", or "man", and "person". The former refers to the species, while the latter refers to a rational agent.\n\nJuvenile male humans are called boys, adult males men (not to be confused with the gender-neutral man or mankind), juvenile females girls, and adult females women.\n\n[edit]\nBiology\nMain article: Human biology \n[edit]\nPhysiology and genetics\nMain articles: Human anatomy, Human physical appearance and Genetics of humans \n \nAn old diagram of a male human skeleton.Human body types vary substantially. Although body size is largely determined by genes, it is also significantly influenced by environmental factors such as diet and exercise. The average height of a North American adult female is 162 centimetres (5 feet 4 inches), and the average weight is 62 kilograms (137 pounds). Human males are typically larger than females: the average height and weight of a North American adult male is 175 centimeters (5 feet 9 inches) and 78 kilograms (172 pounds).\n\nHumans are capable of fully bipedal locomotion, thus leaving their arms available for manipulating objects using their hands, aided especially by opposable thumbs. Because human p
109239
The reason why people have problems with this concept is simply because they fail to understand the difference between a BIOLOGICAL reality and a CULTURAL reality.\n\nLook, if we wanted to we could group people by shirt colour couldn’t we? People with blue, green or purple shirts in one group, red yellow and orange in another and blacks, whites and greys making a third group? Do you agree that we could do that? We could then choose as a SOCIETY to teat those groups differently. We can tax them at different rates, throw them in prison whatever we like. \n\nWhat we have here is an example of a CULTURAL reality. The division of people by shirt colour is indisputably real. It indisputably has real effects on the real lives of real people. By any standard you like it is real. But do you also accept that such a division by shirt colour is not based in BIOLOGY? Do you accept that there is no common genetic thread amongst all the people in the green shirt group? Do you accept that it is perfectly possible for two people who are very closely related BIOLOGICALLY to be placed in totally separate shirt groups?\n\nWell, race is no different in any way at all. We have traditionally grouped people according to certain racial features. Those features were chosen at random, they are just as random as shirt colour. And they tell us no more about the person than shirt colour does. \n\nThat is what we mean when we state that race has no BIOLOGICAL reality. Black people are not closely related to one another. A random black person has a greater chance of being related to a White person or an Asian person than to another Black person. A White person has the same chance of being related to a black person as to another White. The only common feature held by Black people is the feature that we used to define them in the first place: black skin. That’s it.\n\nSo to answer your question, yes race is real. Nobody has ever denied that race is very, very real. How could you anyone possibly deny that race is real?  But race is CULTURALLY and HISTORICALLY real. It is not BIOLOGICALLY real.\n\n>>>>> Is the difference in skin colour and hair texture down to mutations\n\nIf you go back far enough, yes. But what  you need to realise that it isn’t just one mutation. There is no common skin colour gene found amongst all black people or all white people.  Heck, there isn’t even a common skin colour found amongst all the people we define as Black or White. That is precisely why race has no biological meaning.
214059
human evolution, theory of the origins of the human species, Homo sapiens. Modern understanding of human origins is derived largely from the findings of paleontology, anthropology, and genetics, and involves the process of natural selection (see Darwinism). Although gaps in the fossil record due to differential preservation prevent the complete specification of the line of human descent, H. sapiens share clear anatomical, genetic, and historic relationships to other primates. Of all primates, humans bear particularly close affinity to other members of a group known as hominoids, or apes, which includes orangutans, gibbons, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Humans and their immediate ancestors, known as hominids, are notable among hominoids for their bipedal locomotion, slow rate of maturation, large brain size, and, at least among the more recent hominids, the development of a relatively sophisticated capacity for language, tool use, and social activity.\nThe Evolutionary Tree\n\nHumans are mammals of the Primate order. The earliest primates evolved about 65 million years ago in the geological period known as the Paleocene epoch. They were small-brained, arboreal fruit eaters, similar to modern tree shrews. Primates of the Eocene epoch (55 to 38 million years ago) were similar and ancestral to contemporary tarsiers, lemurs, and tree shrews, and are classified as lower primates or prosimians. During the late Eocene, the higher primates, or anthropoids, developed from prosimian ancestors and, aided by continental drift, diverged into New World (or platyrrhine) and Old World (or catarrhine) monkeys. The branching of Old World monkeys and hominoids apparently occurred in the late Oligocene (38 to 25 million years ago) or early Miocene (25 to 8 million years ago), a time period poorly represented in the fossil record. The lesser apes (gibbons and siamangs) and other hominoid lines diverged about 20 million years ago, while the Asian great apes (the orangutan being the only surviving form) diverged from the African hominoids about 15 to 10 million years ago. Genetic evidence suggests that the ancestral lines of gorillas diverged about 8 million years ago and that chimpanzees and hominids diverged about 5 million years ago.\n\nHominid Evolution\n\nThe earliest known hominids are members of the genus Australopithecus, the earliest of which date to more than 4 million years ago. Unlike other primates, but like all hominids, australopithecines were bipedal. Their crania, however, were small and apelike, with an average cranial capacity of about 450 cc in the gracile species and 600 cc in the robust forms. Australopithecines that have been considered ancestral in the lineage leading to the human genus Homo include A. afarensis (an important skeleton of which is popularly known as Lucy) and A. africanus. The exact position of these and other early species on the hominid family tree continues to be disputed.\n\nThe first member of the genus Homo, a small gracile species known as H. habilis, was present in east Africa at least 2 million years ago. H. habilis was the first hominid to exhibit the marked expansion of the brain (with an average cranial capacity of about 750 cc) that would become a hallmark of subsequent hominid evolutionary history. By about 1.6 million years ago, H. habilis had evolved into a larger, more robust, and larger-brained species known as Homo erectus. Cranial capacities ranged from about 900 cc in early specimens to 1050 cc in later ones. H. erectus persisted for well over a million years and migrated off the African continent into Asia, Indonesia, and Europe.\n\nBetween 500,000 and 250,000 years ago, H. erectus evolved into H. sapiens. Transitional forms between H. erectus and H. sapiens are referred to as archaic H. sapiens. With the exception of H. sapiens neandertalensis (see Neanderthal man), no additional subspecies are recognized. Indeed, some scientists consider Neanderthal a separate species. Archaic H. sa
289678
Homo sapiens are animals because:\n1) We are multicellular and comprised of eukaryotic cells.  \nThis differentiates us from monerans and many protists.\n2) We are heterotrophs, which differentiates us from plants.\n3) Our cells lack cell walls, unlike the cells of fungi and plants.\nYou can read about other distingushing characteristics here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal