What if there are several species of humans?

weekend blog

I don’t claim any originality here. I got the idea for this weekend’s blog from several of Simon Webb’s always excellent ‘History Debunked’ YouTube videos.

Apologies that this weekend’s blog may seem a bit long and boring. But I think it may be rather important.

I asked Google “How many species of humans are there?” The reply I got was:

• While only one human species exists today—Homo sapiens—scientists estimate that at least 21 species of early humans (genus Homo) have existed throughout history, based on the fossil record. These extinct species include Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals), Homo erectus, and Homo floresiensis. The exact number is debated due to evolving fossil discoveries and differing definitions of species.

I then checked with the source of truth – the BBC – and learnt:

• “Not so very long ago, we shared this planet with several other species of human, all of them clever, resourceful and excellent hunters, so why did only Homo sapiens survive?”

This is the perceived wisdom – that there is now only one species of human. This is ‘settled science’ (just like Anthropogenic Global Warming and the “safe and effective vaccines”?). So we are told we are all one species – Homo sapiens – and that although there are clearly different races, all races are of equal value, equal intelligence, equal culture, equal everything.

But what if DNA analysis was done and it showed that humans from one part of the world tend to be larger and stronger than other humans, that some humans from another part of the world tend to have better cognitive skills, creativity and intelligence and some humans from another part of the world are so inbred that they have decreased the quality of their DNA and are actually regressing?

For example, the BBC tells us:

• the first creature we would recognise as human first appeared in Africa two million years ago. Known as Homo ergaster, they made tools and were proficient hunters. Their bones suggest they would have been powerful runners, capable of speeds that would rival a modern Olympic athlete.

The BBC also informs us:

•  ergaster became the first human to leave Africa and colonise Asia. Here, in a new and lush environment, they evolved and got a new name, Homo erectus.

Now, hopefully things start to get more interesting. Here’s the BBC again:

• Homo erectus was slightly bigger and more powerful than Homo sapiens, so why did we thrive when they did not? The most obvious answer is that we had bigger brains – but it turns out that what matters is not overall brain size but the areas where the brain is larger.
• “The Homo erectus brain did not devote a lot of space to the part of the brain that controls language and speech,” said John Shea, professor of palaeoanthropology at Stony Brook University in New York.
• “One of the crucial elements of Homo sapiens’ adaptations is that it combines complex planning, developed in the front of the brain, with language and the ability to spread new ideas from one individual to another.. “
• “Planning, communication and even trade led, among other things, to the development of better tools and weapons which spread rapidly across the population”

The BBC version doesn’t mention the Neanderthals.

About 60,000 years ago, there were four main human secies – Homo sapiens in Africa, Neanderthals in Europe and parts of Asia, Denisovans in parts of Asia and Homo erectus in some parts of the world.

Now let’s play a stupid game:

• What if the Homo sapiens in subequatorial Africa either remained isolated or even interbred with the more primitive Homo erectus? This could have produced a human species that was physically and athetically strong
• What if the Homo sapiens which remained in Northern Africa and parts of the Middle East didn’t interbreed with any other human species and even degraded its DNA through thousands of years of inbreeding?
• What if the Homo sapiens which moved to Europe interbred with Neanderthals giving the new breed new skills and cognitive abilities which the original Homo sapiens didn’t possess?
• What if the Homo sapiens which moved to Asia interbred with Denisovans creating a new species with its specific skills?
• What if some Homo sapiens interbred with the more primitive Homo erectus producing a species which was genetically less advanced?

There are several clever people who have written best-selling books on why different parts of the world developed in different ways. For example, the 1998 bestseller “Guns, Germs and Steel” and the 2019 “Prisoners of Geography“. But, as far as I know, nobody has dared try to explain the different rates of development of different races in terms of them actually being different species.

Google informs us:

• There are approximately 360 to 375 recognized species of hummingbirds, belonging to the family Trochilidae
• There are over 500 described species of sharks currently known to science, with some estimates exceeding 530
• There are generally recognized to be 18 species of penguins, though some classifications range between 17 and 22 depending on whether certain populations are considered species or subspecie
• There are approximately 30 to 80 species of true nettles within the Urtica genus, with 54 accepted species noted in global databases

Yet curiously, the only permitted ‘truth’ is that there is only one species of human being. However, the idea of there actually being several human species would go a long way to explaining why different parts of the world have developed in different ways going from the high culture and scientific achievements of Europeans (Homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals) down to groups like aborigines and native Americans (possibly Homo sapiens interbred with Homo erectus) who didn’t even manage to invent the wheel.

Admitting that there are several species of humans, rather than just one species, would be catastrophic for the Kumbaya, ‘we-are-all-one-family’, ‘all-races-are-equal’ race relations industry. It would also suggest that if you did Bell Curves of specific characteristics – physical strength, intelligence, problem-solving or whatever – these would be quite different for the different human species.

Acceptance that there are different human species would also pose significant issues for policies around social cohesion. I’ll leave you to imagine the consequences. It would also affect how we view immigration. If we are just one species and all races are equal, it should be easy for new arrivals into a country to integrate and assimilate into that country’s values and way of life. But if we are different species, then questions could be asked about whether the arriving species can ever integrate with the indigenous species.

And so, political correctness instructs us to believe that alone among God’s creatures and plants, we humans are the only group where there is just one, and only one, species.