• Skyrmir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    Human is specifically Homo Sapiens. The rest of the Homo genus, be they ancestors or not, are not recognized as human.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Considering the fact that we interbred with H. neanderthalensis and H. denisova (and still carry the residual DNA to prove it), I think it’s pretty well proven that considering only H. sapiens to be “human” is overly narrow.

      Personally, I would argue that anything within the Homo genus is human by definition (that’s what the word means!), and that anything non-human belongs in a genus like Australopithecus or Paranthropus instead.

    • Huschke@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s not entirely accurate anymore.

      Yet mounting evidence from fossil and archaeological discoveries, as well as DNA analyses, has experts increasingly rethinking that scenario. It now looks as though H. sapiens originated far earlier than previously thought, possibly in locations across Africa instead of a single region, and that some of its distinguishing traits—including aspects of the brain—evolved piecemeal. Moreover, it has become abundantly clear that H. sapiens actually did mingle with the other human species it encountered and that interbreeding with them may have been a crucial factor in our success.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-homo-sapiens-the-sole-surviving-member-of-the-human-family/