Do we have "human subspecies" rather than "human races"?

[LoLeL]

Read this study and think about it
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1124084320.htm

New species can develop in as little as two generations, Galapagos study finds

TWO GENERATIONS => New species

Some humans are isolated and untouched more than two generations, e.g. Aboriginal Australians. Also why not Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid subspecies instead of Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid race

[zhaoyun]

I suppose so. What would be the difference between a sub-specie and a race? It seems like the terminology of race is only applied to humans, whereas in other species, they would be termed subspecies like for tigers for example (Bengal, Siberian, Sumatran, etc).

[Abdelnour]

I guess Neanderthals and Denisovan, but they died out.

Honestly, if there was a subspecies of humans, it would not go well publicly due to our PC culture.

[Teutone]

Homo floresiensis is the only case I can think of, but they extinct.

Still interesting they lived not so long ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

[zhaoyun]

Homo floresiensis is the only case I can think of, but they extinct.

Still interesting they lived not so long ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

I wish they were still around. It'd be interesting. But most likely they would exist like the Congolese pygmies do, in isolation, and when in contact with the general human populations, are subject to exploitation and slavery.

I read there were Dutch accounts of sighting them when they first sailed to the East Indies.

[Nurzat]

[LoLeL]

I guess Neanderthals and Denisovan, but they died out.

Honestly, if there was a subspecies of humans, it would not go well publicly due to our PC culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archai..._modern_humans

Neanderthal-derived DNA was found in the genome of contemporary populations in Europe and Asia, estimated as accounting for between 1% and 6% of modern genomes. The highest rates of archaic admixture have been found in indigenous Oceanian and Southeast Asian populations, with an estimated 4%–6% of the genome of modern Melanesians being derived from Denisovans.

Neanderthal-derived ancestry is significantly absent from most modern populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. However, archaic alleles consistent with several independent admixture events in the subcontinent have been found.

Some modern human groups have Neanderthal admixture, others have Denisovans admixture, some others have or lack both of them. God knows what other archaic human admixtures scientists would find in the future.

The role of archaic human admixture is more than "race" in my opinion. For instance, when someone has Denisovans admixture it means he/she may have some archaic traits which other humans lack it. Neanderthal admixture is responsible for some traits among Eurasians. And the story continues.

[Petalpusher]

Even speciation can happen quickly, it all depends on the kind of natural pressure and selection you put a group through. Meanwhile some species didn't evolve for millions of years because they had no pressure to.

[Leo Iscariot]

I guess Neanderthals and Denisovan, but they died out.

Honestly, if there was a subspecies of humans, it would not go well publicly due to our PC culture.

My thought exactly.

[LoLeL]

I suppose so. What would be the difference between a sub-specie and a race? It seems like the terminology of race is only applied to humans, whereas in other species, they would be termed subspecies like for tigers for example (Bengal, Siberian, Sumatran, etc).

Human biology is affected by politics. Also many people think accepting terms like race divides humans or makes some people more/less human. So currently biologists use safer words/terms in their studies. Another point is there is no consensus about it among scientists.