Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

im2randomghgh wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Lynata wrote:

zilegil wrote:Actually no, not lifestyle. That is natural selection. Not mutation.

Isn't mutation part of natural selection, though?

That is best explained by 'all Innuits are Eskimo, but not all Eskimo are Innuit'

Lifestyle and mutation play massive parts in natural selection, but lifestlye does not in general cause mutation

+1.

I think you just nailed it on the head.

What? Isn't Eskimo just a politically incorrect term for Inuit? Like Indian for Native American.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Lynata wrote:

zilegil wrote:Actually no, not lifestyle. That is natural selection. Not mutation.

Isn't mutation part of natural selection, though?

That is best explained by 'all Innuits are Eskimo, but not all Eskimo are Innuit'

Lifestyle and mutation play massive parts in natural selection, but lifestlye does not in general cause mutation

+1.

I think you just nailed it on the head.

What? Isn't Eskimo just a politically incorrect term for Inuit? Like Indian for Native American.

Naw G.

Eskimos are "peoples are indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited the circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia), across Alaska (United States), Canada, and Greenland." (wikipedia quote btw)

Inuits are a specific tribe that fit that description.

im2randomghgh wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Lynata wrote:

zilegil wrote:Actually no, not lifestyle. That is natural selection. Not mutation.

Isn't mutation part of natural selection, though?

That is best explained by 'all Innuits are Eskimo, but not all Eskimo are Innuit'

Lifestyle and mutation play massive parts in natural selection, but lifestlye does not in general cause mutation

+1.

I think you just nailed it on the head.

What? Isn't Eskimo just a politically incorrect term for Inuit? Like Indian for Native American.

Naw G.

Eskimos are "peoples are indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited the circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia), across Alaska (United States), Canada, and Greenland." (wikipedia quote btw)

Inuits are a specific tribe that fit that description.

Read the rest of that wikipedia entry.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Lynata wrote:

zilegil wrote:Actually no, not lifestyle. That is natural selection. Not mutation.

Isn't mutation part of natural selection, though?

That is best explained by 'all Innuits are Eskimo, but not all Eskimo are Innuit'

Lifestyle and mutation play massive parts in natural selection, but lifestlye does not in general cause mutation

+1.

I think you just nailed it on the head.

What? Isn't Eskimo just a politically incorrect term for Inuit? Like Indian for Native American.

Naw G.

Eskimos are "peoples are indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited the circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia), across Alaska (United States), Canada, and Greenland." (wikipedia quote btw)

Inuits are a specific tribe that fit that description.

Read the rest of that wikipedia entry.

I diiiiiiiiiiiiid

im2randomghgh wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Lynata wrote:

zilegil wrote:Actually no, not lifestyle. That is natural selection. Not mutation.

Isn't mutation part of natural selection, though?

That is best explained by 'all Innuits are Eskimo, but not all Eskimo are Innuit'

Lifestyle and mutation play massive parts in natural selection, but lifestlye does not in general cause mutation

+1.

I think you just nailed it on the head.

What? Isn't Eskimo just a politically incorrect term for Inuit? Like Indian for Native American.

Naw G.

Eskimos are "peoples are indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited the circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia), across Alaska (United States), Canada, and Greenland." (wikipedia quote btw)

Inuits are a specific tribe that fit that description.

Read the rest of that wikipedia entry.

I diiiiiiiiiiiiid

and? You know pejorative=bad right?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Lynata wrote:

zilegil wrote:Actually no, not lifestyle. That is natural selection. Not mutation.

Isn't mutation part of natural selection, though?

That is best explained by 'all Innuits are Eskimo, but not all Eskimo are Innuit'

Lifestyle and mutation play massive parts in natural selection, but lifestlye does not in general cause mutation

+1.

I think you just nailed it on the head.

What? Isn't Eskimo just a politically incorrect term for Inuit? Like Indian for Native American.

Naw G.

Eskimos are "peoples are indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited the circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia), across Alaska (United States), Canada, and Greenland." (wikipedia quote btw)

Inuits are a specific tribe that fit that description.

Read the rest of that wikipedia entry.

I diiiiiiiiiiiiid

and? You know pejorative=bad right?

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


Automatically Appended Next Post:

im2randomghgh wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Lynata wrote:

zilegil wrote:Actually no, not lifestyle. That is natural selection. Not mutation.

Isn't mutation part of natural selection, though?

That is best explained by 'all Innuits are Eskimo, but not all Eskimo are Innuit'

Lifestyle and mutation play massive parts in natural selection, but lifestlye does not in general cause mutation

+1.

I think you just nailed it on the head.

What? Isn't Eskimo just a politically incorrect term for Inuit? Like Indian for Native American.

Naw G.

Eskimos are "peoples are indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited the circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia), across Alaska (United States), Canada, and Greenland." (wikipedia quote btw)

Inuits are a specific tribe that fit that description.

Read the rest of that wikipedia entry.

I diiiiiiiiiiiiid

and? You know pejorative=bad right?

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It is still valid (The "All Inuits are eskimos but not all eskimos are inuits thing") Because it includes the Yupik.

Lynata wrote:That's a controversial topic. Given that GW has gone as far as to edit existing books to change Squat characters into another race, one could say that they do not longer exist, as far as studio material is concerned. Novels such as the Ravenor series are, as always, an individual author's interpretation, and as such may conflict with how GW thinks the setting should look like.
Not that I find this harsh course of action necessary, mind you. GW could as well have simply removed them as a playable army but still kept them around as a race. It's not like people could play species like Loxatl either... I still think Squats were cool in an orky way, so I can see why some authors feel compelled to disregard their disappearance. My DH group does as well, actually.

This is canon information from IG 5th edition Codex.

978.M41

Whilst in pursuit of his nemesis, Commissar Yarrick is captured at Golgotha. His personal Baneblade, the Fortress of Arrogance, is destroyed during the fighting. He escapes barely a month later in mysterious circumstances, but the planet of Golgotha and its abhuman inhabitants are utterly destroyed by the Orks.

Initially Golgotha was a Squat world, so this is the hint of Squats

Golgotha was the squat home world in rogue trader, even then the orks under ghazghkull took the planet as their new fortress from them so just assume they're extinct lol

anyway as for the original question

Abhumans evolved by the nature of the planets they're from (I dunno bout ratlings and squats but it says ogrybs are from high gravity worlds making them large so they cannot get squashed by the gravity)

mutants are created from either radiation or warp exposure. because of the imperial laws and faith all mutants are considered inferior species and in most cases heretic, forced to live at the bottom of the hive cities or used as slave labour on other planets in the imperium.

Genetic Modified humans are created by the imperium to just fight. Space marines and gland warriors fit in this part.

I suppose that abhumans have stable genotype and phenotype (Squats, Ogryns and Ratlings differ from each other just like ordinary humans). But mutants exist in many different and usually disgusting forms (remember twists from the Inquisitor). Humans changed by Chaos are definitely mutants.
But this can't explain two things: we consider both psykers and navigators mutants but the former are identical to humans in appearance and the latter are stable species with a specific brain and eye mutation.

Whatever the High Lords say.

Probably.

who ever is useful is abhuman
who isnt a mutant lol

40K has a weird thing where the word "mutation" is not used commonly in the same way we use it today. Changes in DNA between generations are not called mutation in 40K; sudden changes within an individual due to Chaos/radiation are.

The entire human species (And their abhuman descendants) are mutants, but they're not mutants.

Klogger wrote:I see it as Abhumans take time for change to take effect, and mutants go the quick and easy route.

Abhuman: Ogryns evolving on a planet over 2000 years
Mutants: The Joker falling into the bucket of acid and getting green hair and white skin

Disfigurement is not mutation.

im2randomghgh wrote:Abhumans are humans who have adapted to a different environment, whereas mutants are regular humans with unstable genes.

The problem with that explanation is that whilst it makes sense (at least by the setting's dubious and flexible scientific laws) that harsh conditions, heavy gravity or whatnot could produce bigger or smaller human beings (i.e Ogryns and Squats) it is difficult to imagine conditions under which, even over millennia, human beings could naturally develop into horned, cloven-hoofed beastmen, let alone that they could then reproduce in a stable fashion. Other than warp-spawned mutation, the only semi-plausible explanation I could imagine - and it's entirely unsupported by the fluff - would be that the beastmen were the products of deliberate gene-tampering in the dark age of technology.

Since we don't know the effect of taking people on putting them on different planets for tens of thousands of years it's hard to say what is scientifically possible.

I really don't think that we need to wait for empirical evidence to deduce that evolving into half man-half goat creatures is scientifically implausible.

My objection to the notion of beastmen as abhumans, however, lies not in genuine science, but in the internal logic of Warhammer 40,000's pseudoscience.

English Assassin wrote:I really don't think that we need to wait for empirical evidence to deduce that evolving into half man-half goat creatures is scientifically implausible.

My objection to the notion of beastmen as abhumans, however, lies not in genuine science, but in the internal logic of Warhammer 40,000's pseudoscience.

Beastmen are abhumans by 40K definition due to the fact that they breed true, two beastmen will have a beastmen child.

A mutant (say a man with a tenticle arm) breeds with a human the child won't have a tenticle due to the fact that the tenticle was not a natural piece of 'evolution' but the touch of chaos.

40k science says that if they breed true they are abhumans, if they are just deformed/mutated by chaos or waste then they are mutants. The confusion comes when 40K writers mix up terms and call groups like Navigators mutants when they are in fact man made abhumans.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:and? You know pejorative=bad right?

Its still pejorative to a tribesman to keep refering to them as Inuit when they are infact from another distinct tribe. Imagine if someone repeatedly called you American if you came from France.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Since we don't know the effect of taking people on putting them on different planets for tens of thousands of years it's hard to say what is scientifically possible.

Its not hard however to use information and data we have now about evolution to extropolate the results. We also no that rapid changes occur in human bodies when exposed to changes in gravity for long periods of time, astronauts on the space station will come back with weaked muscle and bones due to zero g enviroment, so the reverse should be true as well.

BluntmanDC wrote:The confusion comes when 40K writers mix up terms and call groups like Navigators mutants when they are in fact man made abhumans.

Given the 2E Codex fluff cited on the previous page, I gravitate towards a mere PoV thing again. Abhumans are tolerated, mutants get culled. Who is officially a mutant and who is an abhuman gets decided by the Inquisition, based on genetic tests determining the degree of impurity - unofficially, it is whoever is in charge in the given area, for the Ecclesiarchy surely has its own opinion on the subject, as will some mob of locals stirred up by some agitator. And in the scope of the setting and the differences of both culture as well as technology and superstition between the various worlds, I think that is quite fitting. And this way, it would also explain why some Imperials would refer to a given individual as an abhuman whereas others may advocate their destruction due to being a mutant.

BluntmanDC wrote:

English Assassin wrote:I really don't think that we need to wait for empirical evidence to deduce that evolving into half man-half goat creatures is scientifically implausible.

My objection to the notion of beastmen as abhumans, however, lies not in genuine science, but in the internal logic of Warhammer 40,000's pseudoscience.

Beastmen are abhumans by 40K definition due to the fact that they breed true, two beastmen will have a beastmen child.

A mutant (say a man with a tenticle arm) breeds with a human the child won't have a tenticle due to the fact that the tenticle was not a natural piece of 'evolution' but the touch of chaos.

40k science says that if they breed true they are abhumans, if they are just deformed/mutated by chaos or waste then they are mutants. The confusion comes when 40K writers mix up terms and call groups like Navigators mutants when they are in fact man made abhumans.

It's not to that I was objecting, rather to the conflation of ogryns, squats and ratlings, which could, with a measure of plausibility (at least within Warhammer 40,000's dubious science) arise as distinct species in response to environmental factors, with beastmen, which simply couldn't.

However, just for the sake of it, I will disagree with the 'breeding true' argument too. According to Lost and the Damned, which was present canon at the time 'abhuman' beastmen were still fielded in Imperial armies, beastmen don't do that! A hairy, goaty beastman baby can be born to ostensibly normal human parents, and conversely, beastmen can produce apparently human offspring - moreover, some 'beastmen' are the product of spontaneous mutation of humanoids.

BluntmanDC wrote:

English Assassin wrote:I really don't think that we need to wait for empirical evidence to deduce that evolving into half man-half goat creatures is scientifically implausible.

My objection to the notion of beastmen as abhumans, however, lies not in genuine science, but in the internal logic of Warhammer 40,000's pseudoscience.

Beastmen are abhumans by 40K definition due to the fact that they breed true, two beastmen will have a beastmen child.

A mutant (say a man with a tenticle arm) breeds with a human the child won't have a tenticle due to the fact that the tenticle was not a natural piece of 'evolution' but the touch of chaos.

40k science says that if they breed true they are abhumans, if they are just deformed/mutated by chaos or waste then they are mutants. The confusion comes when 40K writers mix up terms and call groups like Navigators mutants when they are in fact man made abhumans.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:and? You know pejorative=bad right?

Its still pejorative to a tribesman to keep refering to them as Inuit when they are infact from another distinct tribe. Imagine if someone repeatedly called you American if you came from France.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Since we don't know the effect of taking people on putting them on different planets for tens of thousands of years it's hard to say what is scientifically possible.

Its not hard however to use information and data we have now about evolution to extropolate the results. We also no that rapid changes occur in human bodies when exposed to changes in gravity for long periods of time, astronauts on the space station will come back with weaked muscle and bones due to zero g enviroment, so the reverse should be true as well.

It's not a pejorative to call a non-inuit an inuit. It's just incorrect. In fact saying inuit is a pejorative in any scenario is basically insulting inuits. In Canada when people say eskimo they're talking about inuits. Anyways, totally going off-topic now so nevermind.

so what is the main difference between an abhuman and a mutant human...

However, just for the sake of it, I will disagree with the 'breeding true' argument too. According to Lost and the Damned, which was present canon at the time 'abhuman' beastmen were still fielded in Imperial armies, beastmen don't do that! A hairy, goaty beastman baby can be born to ostensibly normal human parents, and conversely, beastmen can produce apparently human offspring - moreover, some 'beastmen' are the product of spontaneous mutation of humanoids.

But as far back as WHFRP 1st Ed, Beastmen *do* breed true. Any regular humans that have Beastman babies are Warp-touched in some way. It doesn't happen spontaneously.

so what is the main difference between an abhuman and a mutant human...

As has been covered like 20 times in this thread, a mutant is an individual that shows marked differences from the human baseline, cause by environmental or Warp-based influences.

No two mutants are identical (or, if they are, it is purely by chance and coincidence, not genetic expression).

An abhuman is a human that has been genetically altered, either by design (such as Navigators), environment (such as Ogryns and Ratlings) or natural process (such as psykers). Of these groups, at least the first two will "breed true" (Navigators only have Navigator babies, Ogryns will only have Ogryn babies, etc). There's not a lot of information (any at all, afaik) about breeding psykers with psykers.

Squats are mentioned in the 6th edition rulebook. So GW's current policy is they're still there.

Marines might be called Abhuman in some fluff, but they really don't fit the definition. A male Ratling can breed with a female ratling to produce more ratlings, and the same goes for Ogryns and presumably other Abhumans. Marines, however, don't breed in that manner. (neither do mutants for the most part... at least not unless it's over the course of thousands of years and evolution gradually forms it into its own species/race)

Post-Human (which translates as "After-Human") fits Marines the best. In order to "reproduce" (or, more accurately, "produce more marines"), they need a normal human first. Thus "after human" (You're a human first, and then AFTERwards, you're a Marine).

It would be hard to believe that every single Squat in the galaxy was at Squat-Con on the Homeworlds when the Tyranids crashed the party. There have to be small enclaves, ships, individuals, etc. scattered throughout the galaxy.... just not enough of them to be a self-contained faction of note.

LightKing, you necroed a thread from 2011.

zilegil wrote:
Actually no, not lifestyle. That is natural selection. Not mutation.

Natural Selection obviously requires mutation to get anywhere. Just a small amount of mutation each generation.


The key for abhumans is that they are a population of alike individuals that have the same delta from normal humans, that is genetically viable and propagating.

I'm surprised no one's said the most obvious answer yet. The difference between mutants and abhumans?

Sanction.

Excepting that sanctioning is not an Imperium-wide thing. Some worlds consider Ogryns and Ratlings to be mutants, and don't permit them to be on their worlds, and will kill or exile any they find.

so a mutant is hated by the imperium

but an abhuman has the same social standing as regular humans

Id figure the difference is an abhuman is born that way while a mutant has changed after birth

LightKing wrote:
so a mutant is hated by the imperium

but an abhuman has the same social standing as regular humans

Maybe. Depends on the planet.

Some planets will equally kill mutants, psykers, Ogryns and Ratlings for being Warp-touched.

Some planets will allow Ogryns and Ratlings just fine, enslave mutants, and burn psykers at the stake.

Some planets will permit all of them to live, though there are laws for handling Psykers.

Ogryns are not actually considered on-par with humans... they are far too stupid... and are used as very heavy infantry by the Imperial Guard. You will not often find them outside of the Guard, other than on Ogryn Worlds.