I allow that you've established that distinct species can sometimes reproduce and within that domain also produce fertile offspring. On what basis would you assert the term "species" is a more accurate description of different populations within the human species? By allowing the above, it seems to me that the definition of species gets a lot blurrier.
[–] ditch-digger ago
I do equate species to sub population of humans. The only reason why it's blurry is because its form and usage is already blurry. Species is the singular and plural form. Human species in general usage means all humans. Human species could also mean every species that can be considered human. It's annoying.
[–] jxfaith 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Right but how would you determine what point along the line a specific sub population needs defined? It's easy to see that a Spaniard is a different sub-species than a South African, but what basis do you use to compare two individuals in South Africa to determine whether they are a distinct sub-species?
My point is from a purely pragmatic perspective. I don't see the point in getting fussy about sub-species among modern humans because the lines are far too blurry between populations. It's interesting that we have good record of the origins of specific alleles in the years leading up the modern age, but such things will only ever have utility for looking at one's origins. I just don't think there's much use in the distinction after the invention of the Airplane is all. That's mostly because it becomes extremely difficult to track.