The fact remains that these authorities disagree with you on whether Neanderthals or Denisovians belong to our species.
Yes, and you didnât.
No one denies that H. sapiens co-existed with many of the other hominins who were transitional between us and the MRCA we share with chimps, so providing a few examples of this does nothing to support your claim. Your claim, to remind you, is that we co-existed with all of these hominins and. moreover, none of them were transitional but were simply modern H. sapiens suffering deformities caused by inbreeding and other nutritional or environmental factors.
Thatâs an absurd claim, of course. But if you insist on making it, shouldnât you at least try to provide evidence that would support it?
2 Likes
So you donât understand what a âspeciesâ is. You should probably read up on that first.
And I donât care about your quotes, that isnât how science works.
Yes I can, because unlike you, I actually understand the evidence.
Yes, they were.
2 Likes
Did I say that? No, I did not. If you are unwilling to either read or understand my comments, please stop responding to them.
2 Likes
Are you sure? Letâs see the full reference. But of course there will be disagreements about species, because we see populations in all stages of splitting from one species into two or more. Would we expect that sort of thing in a creationist world?
1 Like
Here is the whole text from which was taken Clive Finlaysonâs quote:
Not sure to understand what you mean here, but the R&Sâs model allows for the generation (by adaptive radiation other time) of human diversity or variation from a single human root.
My vertebrate comparative anatomy, function and evolution textbook classifies neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis; ie as a subspecies of Homo sapiens.
Thanks, but Iâm more interested in Paabo.
Iâm not sure what you mean either. Are you admitting that speciation happens? If so, why do you demand that Neandertals and modern humans are the same species?
1 Like
Thatâs atypical, but may be valid depending on the view of âspeciesâ the authors take. The point is that, whatever group extant humans are in, neanderthals are outside of that group. If you want to toss an extra âs.â into âH. sapiensâ, fine, but it doesnât change the point.
2 Likes
And between now and the common ancestor we share with Pan there is 5-7 million years, so thatâs another 4.7 to 6.7 million years where there are no anatomically modern humans, but where we find transitional fossils. Australopithecines, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and so on.
1 Like
That model already exists, Itâs called âevolution.â
2 Likes
Rupe & Sanford disagree that Australopithecines, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and so on are transitional fossils. And, as far as I can see, they provide convincing evidences for this view in Contested Bones, a view that is also shared by some respected members of the paleo community.
Name a few of those.
1 Like
What are they then?
I would like to point you have provided no answer as to why we donât find AMH alongside Australopithecines and early Homo. But instead you have now moved on to why they arenât transitional. So do they exhibit features that we would expect to see in intermediates but they are just modern humans with founder effect problems or do they not have the expected intermediate traits? Youâre all over the place.
4 Likes
Of course they do. Their religious beliefs will allow them to do nothing else. Your statement is as pertinent as saying that a Muslim will not eat pork, therefore pork is inedible.
2 Likes
Of course they do, otherwise they wouldnât be creationists. That fact alone is of zero relevance.
And, as far as I can see, they provide convincing evidences for this view in Contested Bones, a view that is also shared by some respected members of the paleo community.
What evidences are those? In what way are they NOT transitional fossils? What should transitional hominini fossils look like?
2 Likes
An amazon reviewer has summarised âContested Bonesâ
Section 1 discusses the âHuman Type bones.â This includes Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, and Homo floresiensis. These chapters presents the arguments given in support of these specimens as being sub-humans. Then the authors build a case for them being variant, but fully human. Section 2 discusses the âApe Type bones.â This includes Australopithecus afarensis, and Australopithecus ramidus. It again gives the arguments in support of accepting these specimens as transitional, but ultimately the authors believe the weight of evidence shows them to be fully ape. Section 3 discusses âMiddle Type Bones.â The authors argue that these bones also do not support the idea of common descent.
Todd Wood, however, puts Australopithecus as human instead of ape.
TL;DR - Sanford says Australopithecus is ape. Wood says its human.
Sounds like a transitional fossil to me.
6 Likes
If you actually see that, why arenât you citing that evidence instead of quoting them?
Do you really not perceive that you are back in Nigel Tufnel territory again?
1 Like
basically any fossil cant be consider as transitional, since we cant prove these animals evolved from each other. we can also find âtransitionalâ forms in designed objetcs. of course that doesnt prove they evolved from each other.
This is ladder thinking. Try to actually understand how evolution works and what the claims actually are.
4 Likes