Recently discovered "flat-faced" human species

[cubeus19]

Hi everyone, I recently saw this on yahoo news a few days ago and I also saw this article was posted by Paul Sacramento in another thread so I thought I would just make a separate discussion thread just on this topic. So here is the link, http://news.yahoo.com/flat-faced-human- ... 35125.html

[PaulSacramento]

I think scientists may be using the term "human" a bit too liberally.
Seems like ever "homowhatever" is classified as Human.

[jlay]

So the flatness of the face determines whether its a different species. Interesting.

Different species?

[Stygian]

So the flatness of the face determines whether its a different species. Interesting.

Different species?

Proof that dogs came from dogs!

[Ivellious]

It depends on how you read the article. Scientifically speaking, "human" refers to any member of the "homo" family of species, and generally speaking scientists consider that group to be the closest relatives of us historically. Clearly these are not homo sapiens.

As far as the dogs are concerned, this brief explanation is essentially how I learned it:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... me-species

Basically, different species are usually identified by three factors: looks, location, and the ability to breed naturally. Genetics have certainly thrown a wrench into this as well, and of course the term "species" is arbitrarily defined by scientists. There are frequent arguments over whether organism A and B are the same species, different species, variations of the same species, etc.

In the case of dogs, there are several reasons why most domestic dog breeds are considered one species(Canis familiaris). First of all, they can all interbreed. Second, their genetic makeup outside of physical appearance is essentially the same. Third, there are no real behavioral differences "built in" to dog breeds, contrary to popular belief. Dog breeds are the equivalent of different races of people...just because short, stocky Asian people look drastically different from tall, lean Africans does not mean they are different species.

In the case of humans and different species of humans separate from us: The reasons why we classify different species are varied and debated. Typically, different species lived in different times and places when compared to other species of humans, and in the cases where they do overlap, the behavioral/cultural differences as well as drastic body type changes separate them.

[jlay]

Clearly these are not homo sapiens.

Clearly?
according to who?
Are Aboriginise homo sapiens?
What about Dwarfs?
It is a good thing that the bones were stamped, "Not homo sapien," and "Made in 1.75 million B.C."

In the case of humans and different species of humans separate from us: The reasons why we classify different species are varied and debated. Typically, different species lived in different times and places when compared to other species of humans, and in the cases where they do overlap, the behavioral/cultural differences as well as drastic body type changes separate them

Hmmmm, sounds like a classic case of moving the goal post, to make the evidence fit with determined presuppositions.

So, let's get this straight. In dogs, dramatically different features account for,...... well,....nothing. And in contemporary humans, and primates they count for.....nothing. But dig up some bones and they account for everything. Got it. It is blatantly obvious that a religious committent to evolution very much affects the interpretations of the evidence.