At what point is something a different species?

Given the existence of evolution, at what precise point is one defined as a new species? More specifically, at what point would a descendant of a homo sapien no longer be conisdered a homo sapien? Did I just blow your mind or what? :P (Okay, maybe not.)(Probably futile request: Don't turn this thread into an argument about whether evolution exists or not please. We have plenty of those. Go start another thread if you're just here to say that you don't believe in evolution.)At what point is something a different species?
Am I that tired? Or does this thread make no sense?At what point is something a different species?
Technically speaking something is outside a species when they cease the ability to have fertile offspring. So when Homo Superior or whatever you want to call it is different enough that is loses the ability to have viable offspring with a Homo Sapian then we know it's become different. I doubt that will ever happen given our society though.
It is complicated and I never try to get my head around it. A lot of time it's classed around the form of the skeleton and / or the eating habits. But mostly it's down to developing a habit which is unuseral for their species. Take a Camel Spider for instance, despite their name they don't get classed as aspider because they don't like the sun.
[QUOTE=''Ace6301'']Technically speaking something is outside a species when they cease the ability to have fertile offspring. So when Homo Superior or whatever you want to call it is different enough that is loses the ability to have viable offspring with a Homo Sapian then we know it's become different. I doubt that will ever happen given our society though.[/QUOTE]



Unless someone just can't have offspring at all, when does that ever actually occur over a single generation?
[QUOTE=''Ace6301'']Technically speaking something is outside a species when they cease the ability to have fertile offspring. So when Homo Superior or whatever you want to call it is different enough that is loses the ability to have viable offspring with a Homo Sapian then we know it's become different. I doubt that will ever happen given our society though.[/QUOTE]While that tends to be the most convenient definition, it's actually not an entirely accurate one. The question of what precisely defines a species is so problematic that it even has its own name. Probably the most well-known counterexample to that definition is that of the liger - the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger. A liger has even successfully been observed to bear offspring that survived to adulthood, to boot, so even the notion that species are defined by the ability to create fertile offspring is out. If anyone can successfully create a definition of species that perfectly encapsulates all known examples of species in existence, that person will be well-renowned by biologists indeed. :P
[QUOTE=''Evil_Saluki'']It is complicated and I never try to get my head around it. A lot of time it's classed around the form of the skeleton and / or the eating habits. But mostly it's down to developing a habit which is unuseral for their species. Take a Camel Spider for instance, despite their name they don't get classed as aspider because they don't like the sun.[/QUOTE]



The thing is that the species didn't just spontaneously arrive at that. There were gradual changes for them to get to that point, and they weren't all ''Camel Spiders.'' At some point there has to be a first one, and it's not like it would be vastly different from its parent(s).
[QUOTE=''GabuEx''][QUOTE=''Ace6301'']Technically speaking something is outside a species when they cease the ability to have fertile offspring. So when Homo Superior or whatever you want to call it is different enough that is loses the ability to have viable offspring with a Homo Sapian then we know it's become different. I doubt that will ever happen given our society though.[/QUOTE]While that tends to be the most convenient definition, it's actually not an entirely accurate one. The question of what precisely defines a species is so problematic that it even has its own name. Probably the most well-known counterexample to that definition is that of the liger - the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger. A liger has even successfully been observed to bear offspring that survived to adulthood, to boot, so even the notion that species are defined by the ability to create fertile offspring is out. If anyone can successfully create a definition of species that perfectly encapsulates all known examples of species in existence, that person will be well-renowned by biologists indeed. :P[/QUOTE]



Also a very good point.
[QUOTE=''SpaceMoose'']Also a very good point.[/QUOTE]The bottom line is that the answer to your question is... no one really has any clue. :P We can identify tons upon tons of examples of what we consider to be distinct species, but to my knowledge no one has yet devised an actual definition of ''species'' that works in all cases.
What we define as a different species or a different subspecies or a different race is purely subjective. We set the lines were we want them. This is why many people say that human ''races'' or human ''subspecies'' are social constructs and don't really exist as physical entities.
[QUOTE=''GabuEx''][QUOTE=''SpaceMoose'']Also a very good point.[/QUOTE]The bottom line is that the answer to your question is... no one really has any clue. :P We can identify tons upon tons of examples of what we consider to be distinct species, but to my knowledge no one has yet devised an actual definition of ''species'' that works in all cases.[/QUOTE]



I kind of knew that. That's why it's an interesting question. :P
[QUOTE=''SpaceMoose''][QUOTE=''Evil_Saluki'']It is complicated and I never try to get my head around it. A lot of time it's classed around the form of the skeleton and / or the eating habits. But mostly it's down to developing a habit which is unuseral for their species. Take a Camel Spider for instance, despite their name they don't get classed as aspider because they don't like the sun.[/QUOTE] The thing is that the species didn't just spontaneously arrive at that. There were gradual changes for them to get to that point, and they weren't all ''Camel Spiders.'' At some point there has to be a first one, and it's not like it would be vastly different from its parent(s).[/QUOTE]Camel Spiders are some wicked a** creatures. Just thought I would say that.Pic 2Pic 3
I guess it's like a flock of 'finding nemo' seagulls going ''New species?'' ''New species?'' ''New species?'' ''New species!'' ''New species!'' ''New species!''



While they all nod in agreement. one person says it, another agrees, more agree, and then it's just common knowledge, the same way we spread new words and information via the internet. once somebody says it, somebody else will inevitably catch on and pass it along.