Why would it be considered erroneous to categorize super creative human beings a

Question: Why would it be considered erroneous to categorize super creative human beings as a higher species!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

"Intelligence is not an exclusive monopoly of genius; it is an attribute of all men, and the differences are only a matter of degree!." Ayn RandWww@QuestionHome@Com

No more of an error than it would be to classify the fastest horses at the track, the tallest basketball players in the NBA, or any other characteristic within a species!.

The key here is to discuss what defines and differentiates what constitutes a "species"!. Variable levels of ability are not considered!. Genetic and DNA variances which run true from parent to offspring are considered!.

If you could identify a gene that drives creative ability, then prove that it only exists in certain subpopulations in the human race, and that it is not simply genetic diversity, such as blonde hair or brown hair, then, perhaps you could do as you suggest!.

-KevinWww@QuestionHome@Com

Because being creative does not mean someone is higher up on the food chain, only that they have something akin to a greater veiw of how things can, do, and will interact with each other, or as sme weould put it greater perception!.

On the other hand everyone has a talent, some more than one, hence, I will never score a touchdown in a Super Bowl, make a winning long shot in the NBA, or see what the world looks like from the crest of Mt!. Everest, but I can sculpt, paint, draw, play music ( when I am not too lazy ), have a fair grasp of world events, history, & science, and people!.

See, everyone has something going for them, so no one is technically better than anyone else, just different!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

From a biological viewpoint, because creativity, or any other highly refined human characteristic, does not make that human genetically different from others of the species, nor give him/her a set of characteristics, behaviors, etc that set him/her apart from others!. There must be multiple examples of a proposed species studied for unifying characteristics before it can be regarded as a species!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

To be considered a distinct species, the populations must be separate!. If you can demonstrate that super creative humans never breed with other humans (or vice versa), then you might have something!. Even larger collections of traits have not merited such considerations for humans so far because there are always those exceptional individuals who spread their genes back into the population as a whole!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

because EVERY lower human has in them the capacity to achieve super creativity thus the classification would be null and void from the precept plus creativity is highly subjective and would not conform to objective classificationsWww@QuestionHome@Com

There are no 'higher species', just species that are considered higher!. also, this super-creative entity is still a human, even if it is a 'better' one!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The bell curveWww@QuestionHome@Com

--The *word* "higher" implies that evolution has a direction when it really doesn't!. Natural selection is all about whatever *works* to get living things in the gene pool, short term!. It doesn't care if the lineage of a species goes up, down, across or around in circles, it's all about "gettin'r'done"!. At best you can only measure things roughly by the complexity of an organism, and that's only a scalar, like temperature, not a vector that measures both intensity and direction!.

--The word "species" would also imply a group of people that do not interbreed with other humans because they *can't*!. I don't see a lot of this happening!.!.!.if anything your "creative" types tend to be *more* prone to getting in the mainstream human gene pool, not less (the trend, though culture-specific, does tend to be long-standing, it goes back *at least* to Mozart)!. So if you're looking to describe them as an evolutionary variant or a genetic one, the correct wording would be "sub-species" or "clade"!. Thing is, most meaningful *physical* variants of Homo Sapiens tend to be called "races" and that long-standing trend has become a social and political time-bomb *multiple times over* because the concept has been *Completely Abused* in the name of mostly European Colonial Exploitation, and all its second-hand cousins!.

--But, to humor you!. ^_^ What physical traits *are there*, out there in the world, that would help you *distinguish* your clade from mainstream Homo Sapiens as a body!?

You could talk brain size!.!.!.until you realize that Proust had a *small* brain capacity, and that many *autistic* people (or folks with autistic spectrum symptoms) have larger, outsized heads!.

You could talk about hormones and metabolism!.!.!.!.but there's *already* huge variation in that from one human to the next, even *within normative, healthy ranges medically*!.

Mainly, what you would be talking about is a very small, subtle tweak in DNA!. Or RNA!. Search the site below for the whole phrases "microRNA" and "human brain":

http://www!.sciencenews!.org/

Apparently at least *one* researcher submits that much of the *fine detail* in human thought can't possibly be carried out by neurons alone!.!.!.!.that snippets of this microRNA, which comes from all that "noncoding junk DNA", are responsible for the fine-detail computations!. Why!? Because it's a lower-energy process that works better metabolically!.

And even then!.!.!.how small a change are we talking here!? Recent genetic paleontology suggests that Neandertals were 99!.5% human genetically, just on the basis of raw DNA sequencing!. If that percentage holds for *coding* DNA, the 35,000 to 40,000 bits that define the living system of a body, then we could be talking about a distinction that lies within less than *ten genes*!. To put that in perspective, people who suffer schizophrenia are still human, and yet as many as *ten genes* could have altered, mutated or went missing!.

So how would a difference *that small* make for a clade when differences that small happen all the time within the mainstream of the species!?

Ok, ok!.!.!.!.I don't mean to be harsh here!. ^_^ I'm *NOT* disagreeing with you here!. You may be on to something!. But!.!.!.

You've got to find evidence and do the legwork!. Right now, what folks like you and I have are *hunches*!.!.!.!.hunches don't make science, or even good detective work!. You need to get the forensics and physical evidence, and *make sure* that evidence isn't *about* something else altogether!.

Not just "super creativity" or whatever features you seek on the sociological level, but *physical traits* that "creative types" have in common, that are big enough and stable enough and *tested enough* to prove the beginnings of a clade!.

And actually, it's not going to be *so hard* at some point soon!. We have 6 Billion people on this planet already and counting!. If you search the site above further on the population issues, you'll find other researchers submitting that the sheer *size* of the human population has itself become a *survival pressure* and rekindled evolution *in spite of* civilization!.

But!.!.!.!.there's work involved to make your hunch a hypothesis and then to not get that hypothesis disproven!. Are you up to it!?

Just saying!. ^_^Www@QuestionHome@Com