Species or Varieties

[pshun2404]

Ancient Denisovan lineage has been found in Western Europe going back 400,000 years. They are a variety of early Homo Sapien that had already begun mingling with Neanderthals (another variety of Homo Sapiens). Since they lived in close proximity, and socially and sexually mingled, calling them “a different species” would not be accurate. The toe bone found at Denisova, in Asia, show the socio-sexual blending occurred there as well. These two varieties of human being were blending there at least 130,000 years ago. By definition if they were different species they would most likely be somewhat geo-physically and definitely sexually separated (by choice if not by nature).


Therefore, these were not ape-men, nor even ape-ish people, they were Homo Sapiens. They were not “different species” of animal that cross bred. Likewise the idea that they emerged from Erectus or Heidelbergensis is entirely speculative. We do not know any such thing. The speculation is based on the fallacy that because something precedes another, the former must be the cause or source of the latter. Now I am not saying they were not related in the sense of one being the progenitor of the other…just that because one preceded the other does not necessitate this conclusion, and that we have no sure indicators only provisional or hypothesis based interpretation.


Now it is true that all varieties of Homo Sapien share DNA in common not shared with others, and it is also true that we also share DNA in common with other primates, all mammals, and yes even with fruit and other plants, however that does not necessitate lineage either. It only defines variety in form and function. Most of the DNA we have observed explains why we are physically what we are. Apparently Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the latter “Sapien sapiens” were NOT apes.


Despite hypothesis driven interpretations of the evidence, there is no evidence which actually demonstrates man came from ape-kind, only that we share similar characteristics. We share more physical characteristics with ape-kind than say with felines yet even with cats we share about 90% similarities in the genome (that being because we are living creatures who are mammalian). If the Paabo studies are accurate, and the presumptions are eliminated, a branch of what we call “modern humans” (the alleged Sapien Sapiens) may have in fact branched off and even migrated some 600,000 years ago as opposed to previous hypothesis based assumption of around 195,000 years ago. But is this number nothing more than a figure derived to explain away the shock to the out of Africa theory these new discoveries have caused?


Where Paabo believes their ancient ancestor was in fact erectus, others like Dr. Sarah Tishkoff believea this to merely be one explanation of the data, but not the only one. I tend to agree with her thought that it may or may not be the case. In my opinion, hominidae, pongidae, and hylobatae should remain separate, BECAUSE they are in fact, DIFFERENT species, and thus should not all blended under some man-made blanket term to support the accepted hypothesis. The differences in the skulls and locomotive anatomies are clearly distinct. There is no interest between humans and the alleged “other” Great Apes to form relationships or have sex and likewise no such interests form between any of the others.


Likewise as far as I see it, the evidence really does not show that these distinct groups of humans DIVERGED from one another at some given point, but rather that these three or more distinct varieties of humans MERGED at various times and places.


Dr. Montgomery Slatkin from the University of California, Berkeley, tells us, “We don’t know if interbreeding took place once, where a group of Neanderthals got mixed in with modern humans, and it didn’t happen again, or whether groups lived side by side, and there was interbreeding over a prolonged period…”, but the more important point is that “interbreeding” does not occur naturally between different “species”. As Webster puts it a species is simply “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.” The Cambridge/Oxford definition is “a set of animals or plants the members of which have similar characteristics to each other and which can breed with each other.”


So you see, what we really have here is simply different “varieties” of HUMANS:


a) coming in contact with one another,

b) being socially and physically attracted,

c) forming meaningful relationships,

d) mating, and

e) having offspring


This is very similar to what we see today in different varieties of human populations (say with long term interaction between Mongolian and Congolese PEOPLE). To speculate anything else is entirely hypothesis bias- based assumption and nothing more. It is one possible interpretation of the data but certainly not the only possibility.

 

[pshun2404]

Early European Homo Sapiens

1. Had a culture…. Mellars, P. The Neanderthal Legacy. An Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe, (Princeton University Press, 1996)
2. Made exceptional bone tools….Soressi, M. et al. Neandertals made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14186–14190 (2013)
3. Produced sophisticated Red and Black pigments for social use…Soressi, M. & d’Errico, F. Pigments, gravures, parures: les comportements controversés des Néandertaliens. In Les Néandertaliens, Biologie et Cultures (eds Vandermeersch B. et Maureille B. ) Doc. Préhist. 23, Paris, CTHS, 297–309 (2007)
4. Exhibit burial rites…Maureille, B. & Vandermeersch, B. Les sépultures néandertaliennes. In Les Néandertaliens, Biologie et Cultures (eds Vandermeersch, B. & Maureille, B. ) Doc. Préhist. 23, Paris: CTHS,311–322 (2007)
5. They built underground structures 175,000 years ago…”Early Neanderthal constructions deep in Bruniquel Cave in southwestern France”, Nature, 534, 111–114, (02 June 2016)
6. Had organized purposeful living spaces…..the new research found that Neanderthals butchered animals, made tools and gathered round the fire in different parts of their caves.
7. They even had man-made hearths for heating and cooking in the living spaces of their caves.

Julien Riel-Salvatore, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Colorado Denver tells us "There has been this idea that Neanderthals did not have an organized use of space, something that has always been attributed to humans," (As if Neanderthals or Denisovans were not “humans”. Can you see the hypothesis based bias here?)… "but we found that Neanderthals did not just throw their stuff everywhere but in fact were organized and purposeful when it came to domestic space…"! These findings, published in the Canadian Journal of Archaeology, are based on the excavations at Riparo Bombrini, (a rock shelter in northwest Italy). The evidence suggests different varieties of humans lived and socialized here even forming families.


.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So you see, what we really have here is simply different “varieties” of HUMANS:

a) coming in contact with one another,

b) being socially and physically attracted,

c) forming meaningful relationships,

d) mating, and

e) having offspring

Yes, it is thought that many humans could interbreed with Neanderthals. That doesn't necessarily mean that all humans could interbreed with them. It is possible that humanity was a "ring species", in which those at either extreme were essentially two different species, but those in the middle could breed with those that could breed with those who could breed with the end of the line, and that this worked in either direction.

If your point is that we did not evolve from Neanderthal, we agree. Neanderthal was a sideline in main human evolution.

Compare that with other fossils we have found, such as Australopicius (Lucy) which was clearly a different species, and yet was intermediate between humans and other apes.

Do you agree with the evidence that we evolved with creatures that were similar to modern apes?

 

[SkyWriting]

Ancient Denisovan lineage has been found in Western Europe going back 400,000 years. They are a variety of early Homo Sapien that had already begun mingling with Neanderthals (another variety of Homo Sapiens). Since they lived in close proximity, and socially and sexually mingled, calling them “a different species” would not be accurate. The toe bone found at Denisova, in Asia, show the socio-sexual blending occurred there as well. These two varieties of human being were blending there at least 130,000 years ago. By definition if they were different species they would most likely be somewhat geo-physically and definitely sexually separated (by choice if not by nature).


Therefore, these were not ape-men, nor even ape-ish people, they were Homo Sapiens. They were not “different species” of animal that cross bred. Likewise the idea that they emerged from Erectus or Heidelbergensis is entirely speculative. We do not know any such thing. The speculation is based on the fallacy that because something precedes another, the former must be the cause or source of the latter. Now I am not saying they were not related in the sense of one being the progenitor of the other…just that because one preceded the other does not necessitate this conclusion, and that we have no sure indicators only provisional or hypothesis based interpretation.


Now it is true that all varieties of Homo Sapien share DNA in common not shared with others, and it is also true that we also share DNA in common with other primates, all mammals, and yes even with fruit and other plants, however that does not necessitate lineage either. It only defines variety in form and function. Most of the DNA we have observed explains why we are physically what we are. Apparently Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the latter “Sapien sapiens” were NOT apes.


Despite hypothesis driven interpretations of the evidence, there is no evidence which actually demonstrates man came from ape-kind, only that we share similar characteristics. We share more physical characteristics with ape-kind than say with felines yet even with cats we share about 90% similarities in the genome (that being because we are living creatures who are mammalian). If the Paabo studies are accurate, and the presumptions are eliminated, a branch of what we call “modern humans” (the alleged Sapien Sapiens) may have in fact branched off and even migrated some 600,000 years ago as opposed to previous hypothesis based assumption of around 195,000 years ago. But is this number nothing more than a figure derived to explain away the shock to the out of Africa theory these new discoveries have caused?


Where Paabo believes their ancient ancestor was in fact erectus, others like Dr. Sarah Tishkoff believea this to merely be one explanation of the data, but not the only one. I tend to agree with her thought that it may or may not be the case. In my opinion, hominidae, pongidae, and hylobatae should remain separate, BECAUSE they are in fact, DIFFERENT species, and thus should not all blended under some man-made blanket term to support the accepted hypothesis. The differences in the skulls and locomotive anatomies are clearly distinct. There is no interest between humans and the alleged “other” Great Apes to form relationships or have sex and likewise no such interests form between any of the others.


Likewise as far as I see it, the evidence really does not show that these distinct groups of humans DIVERGED from one another at some given point, but rather that these three or more distinct varieties of humans MERGED at various times and places.


Dr. Montgomery Slatkin from the University of California, Berkeley, tells us, “We don’t know if interbreeding took place once, where a group of Neanderthals got mixed in with modern humans, and it didn’t happen again, or whether groups lived side by side, and there was interbreeding over a prolonged period…”, but the more important point is that “interbreeding” does not occur naturally between different “species”. As Webster puts it a species is simply “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.” The Cambridge/Oxford definition is “a set of animals or plants the members of which have similar characteristics to each other and which can breed with each other.”


So you see, what we really have here is simply different “varieties” of HUMANS:


a) coming in contact with one another,

b) being socially and physically attracted,

c) forming meaningful relationships,

d) mating, and

e) having offspring


This is very similar to what we see today in different varieties of human populations (say with long term interaction between Mongolian and Congolese PEOPLE). To speculate anything else is entirely hypothesis bias- based assumption and nothing more. It is one possible interpretation of the data but certainly not the only possibility.

True history resides in the imagination of the teller and then the listener.

 

[Gene2memE]

What a mess.

Ancient Denisovan lineage has been found in Western Europe going back 400,000 years. They are a variety of early Homo Sapien that had already begun mingling with Neanderthals (another variety of Homo Sapiens). Since they lived in close proximity, and socially and sexually mingled, calling them “a different species” would not be accurate. The toe bone found at Denisova, in Asia, show the socio-sexual blending occurred there as well. These two varieties of human being were blending there at least 130,000 years ago. By definition if they were different species they would most likely be somewhat geo-physically and definitely sexually separated (by choice if not by nature).

This is A set of definitions for species, it is not a definitive set of definitions for species. There are many, many others.

Species is an arbitrary classification invented by humans - a convenient fiction to put biological entities into neat, distinct boxes that we can classify.

Life though, is not about neat, distinct boxes. Life doesn't do straight edges, particularly not over geological time scales. So the boundaries between species, when we look at them through the lenses of tools like comparative morphology and genetics, are fuzzy. The more closely related species are, the fuzzier the boundaries get.

So, given that denisovans, H. neanderthal and H. sapiens have common genetic ancestry that was comparatively recent (geographic separation of ~450,000 years, at most, from common African ancestor), its unsurprising that there was some potential for cross breeding. In genetic terms, we were still quite close relatives.

When we look at H. neanderthal and H. sapiens genetics, we find minimal cross breeding (we can verify just three successful cross breeding 'pulses'), minimal gene inflow from H. neanderthal and H. sapiens (1-4%), almost zero gene inflow from H. sapiens to H. neanderthal (single known case) and strong evidence that interbreeding was likely to lead to reduced fertility, to the point where male hybrids were probably completely infertile and females had reduced fertility.

Therefore, these were not ape-men, nor even ape-ish people

You're going to have to dig a long, long way back to find any paleontological description of Neanderthal as "ape-men" or even "ape-ish people" and it was never applied to Denisova (given that it was only discovered in the 1970s and we have abut 6 fragments in total). Stuff like this makes me wonder just what literature you're reading. I think the last time I saw anything portraying H. nenderthals as 'ape men' was creationist rubbish, or popular science from the 1920s.

they were Homo Sapiens.

Definitively, they were not. That's why they're classified as different species of hominid.

Likewise the idea that they emerged from Erectus or Heidelbergensis is entirely speculative. We do not know any such thing.

Well, we do. Comparative genetics is a wonderfully useful tool.

Apparently Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the latter “Sapien sapiens” were NOT apes.

Humans are hominids. H. neanderthals were hominids. H. denisova were hominids. Apes are hominids. We are all from the same family.

Despite hypothesis driven interpretations of the evidence, there is no evidence which actually demonstrates man came from ape-kind

No such thing as 'ape kind'.

There is plenty of evidence of human-chimpanzee split from a common ancestor between 4-6 million years ago.

If the Paabo studies are accurate, and the presumptions are eliminated, a branch of what we call “modern humans” (the alleged Sapien Sapiens) may have in fact branched off and even migrated some 600,000 years ago as opposed to previous hypothesis based assumption of around 195,000 years ago.

Only if you completely ignore, misconstrue and misinterpret the evidence from those same studies. Language like "and the presumptions are eliminated"is SO revealing.

It basically says, to me at least, that your arguing "if we ignore all the previous evidence and the conclusions drawn from them, then I can misinterpret this study in isolation to say what I want it to say".

 

[doubtingmerle]

True history resides in the imagination of the teller and then the listener.

Wouldn't that be false history?

I always thought true history resides in investigation of records and evidence. Can you explain to me why you might think history based on imagination of the teller might be more true?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What a mess.

Thanks for the good post to explain that mess. Good job.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

ALL adaptations are merely infraspecific taxa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Claims of locally adapted traits leading to speciation is as flawed as is their refusal to accept their own scientific definitions. Just as is their refusal to admit the facts concerning Darwin's Finches. Which are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of their eyes, and according to the DNA data have been doing so since the beginning. No reproductive isolation ever occurred, no speciation ever took place. Yet they still refuse to admit to a mistake in classification that took place over 150 years ago - all to uphold their false beliefs of evolution. Those that can't be trusted in admitting mistakes in the little things, can never be trusted with the larger issues. If they wont admit to a mistake in classification with birds, do you think they'll ever admit to one with man?

 

[pshun2404]

Yes, it is thought that many humans could interbreed with Neanderthals. That doesn't necessarily mean that all humans could interbreed with them. It is possible that humanity was a "ring species", in which those at either extreme were essentially two different species, but those in the middle could breed with those that could breed with those who could breed with the end of the line, and that this worked in either direction.

If your point is that we did not evolve from Neanderthal, we agree. Neanderthal was a sideline in main human evolution.

Compare that with other fossils we have found, such as Australopicius (Lucy) which was clearly a different species, and yet was intermediate between humans and other apes.

Do you agree with the evidence that we evolved with creatures that were similar to modern apes?

Well the first thing is that I noticed is YOUR error in thinking...you say here....

Yes, it is thought that many humans could interbreed with Neanderthals. That doesn't necessarily mean that all humans could interbreed with them.

Right off the bat you excluded Neanderthals from the group "Humans" which is scientifically incorrect. And sorry but "all humans" could interbreed with them, because they were humans also. All humans did not interbreed for many reasons just as all Denisovans did not interbreed in fact all Sapien sapiens did not interbreed with all other Sapien sapiens. The rest is a rant to divert the conversation.

 

[pshun2404]

Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Sapien sapiens are all Homo Sapiens (humans)....some of you keep trying to divide them into different "species" but they are not...they socially dwelt in the same groups more than a few times and they were attracted and mated more than a few times...thus they are varieties of one species.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well the first thing is that I noticed is YOUR error in thinking...you say here....

Yes, it is thought that many humans could interbreed with Neanderthals. That doesn't necessarily mean that all humans could interbreed with them.

Right off the bat you excluded Neanderthals from the group "Humans" which is scientifically incorrect.

That was more of an error in my writing than an error in my thinking. If you read my post, you will see that I said that humans were possibly a ring species with Neanderthals as part of that ring.

Elsewhere I was using "human" to refer to the mainstream ancestral line out of Africa. Neanderthals may or may not have been part of the same species, depending on the definition of species and the success at interbreeding. Scientists dispute the extant of the relationship, and whether they are all the same species. There are even two different scientific names for Neanderthal, depending on the perceived link with modern humans. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/are-neanderthals-human.html .

And sorry but "all humans" could interbreed with them, because they were humans also. All humans did not interbreed for many reasons just as all Denisovans did not interbreed in fact all Sapien sapiens did not interbreed with all other Sapien sapiens.

You seem to be arguing in a circle. How do you know that all Sapiens could interbreed with each other, include Neanderthals and Denisovans? So far I see only your assertion that it is so.

DNA evidence indicates some interbreeding did occur, but as the groups were living together for millenia with almost no interbreeding, the question comes up as to whether they were close enough to be considered the same species.

The rest is a rant to divert the conversation.

It is hard to see how you can consider the 8 short lines of my post a rant. Many posts here are much longer.

And why do you make up motives for me? Nothing was done to divert the conversation. I am not sure what your purpose of the thread is here, but it looks like it may be to argue that there are no intermediates between humans and apes. But I didn't want to make up motives for you. Instead I asked.

And I will ask again: Do you agree with the evidence that we evolved from creatures that were similar to modern apes?

 

[pshun2404]

DNA evidence indicates some interbreeding did occur, but as the groups were living together for millenia with almost no interbreeding, the question comes up as to whether they were close enough to be considered the same species.

Why do you think the DNA evidence suggests the groups were living "together for millenia" with almost no (which implies at least some) interbreeding....

And I will ask again: Do you agree with the evidence that we evolved from creatures that were similar to modern apes?

Well some Primatologists, like Richard Wrangham in his, Tree of Origin: What Primate behavior can tell us about Human Social Evolution, pp. 124–126, tells us that he believes the common ancestor was so chimp-like we should probably just call it Pan Prior. This is funny because even more than simply assuming we both evolved from apes (which implies Darwin was incorrect), in Wrangham’s theorized scenario we actually evolve out of a species that is mostly chimp-like which first evolved from earlier apes.

Dobhansky says we both evolved from some unknown "ape-like" ancestor (thus not an actual ape). Now Darwin believed apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor (which logically would be neither or a unique species with the propensity to become both).

But you and Wrangham ultimately believe in some version of “we evolved FROM apes” (as many posts imply). So either you are incorrect or Darwin is incorrect. Both are speculations allegedly based on evidence but only one can be true. So will you admit that you feel Darwin was wrong?


Unlike you however, Wrangham admits that we have no ACTUAL data, as yet, to be sure, only speculations inferred (I love the language that attempts to hide the sci fi part, i.e., the historical narrative attached). There are two logical fallacies in this thinking:

a) the first is that because we share genome sequences in common necessitates one came from the other (where these could just be the sequences necessary to produce each)...for example we share 90% in common with the modern house cat and 67% in common with Bananas, and
b) the second is that because something exists before something else that that necessitates one came from the other, Correlation simply does not assure cause.


But my issue is always the same…when some present their speculative part as truth (Wrangham is excluded from this group) this bothers me because I KNOW it is not being objective and that true critical thinking is not allowed on the part of opposers. So a person like me asks “Hmmm? Which speculation should we accept if any?” I know from this truth, that my speculations (like the OP, which has much support) are no less true than these other alternate speculations. But most of all NO ONE should insist or imply their speculations on the data are the truth (selectively excluding alternate speculations on the data) to innocently inquiring minds.

 

[USincognito]

Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Sapien sapiens are all Homo Sapiens (humans).....

The DNA evidence says otherwise.

 

[USincognito]

a) the first is that because we share genome sequences in common necessitates one came from the other (where these could just be the sequences necessary to produce each)...for example we share 90% in common with the modern house cat and 67% in common with Bananas, and

We have a higher percentage of DNA with those beings with which we are most closely related. It does not mean we evolved from extant representatives of certain lineages.

b) the second is that because something exists before something else that that necessitates one came from the other, Correlation simply does not assure cause.

This shows that you will probably have an easy time grasping that transitional does not necessarily mean ancestral.

 

[Gene2memE]

DNA evidence indicates some interbreeding did occur, but as the groups were living together for millenia with almost no interbreeding, the question comes up as to whether they were close enough to be considered the same species.

Why do you think the DNA evidence suggests the groups were living "together for millenia" with almost no (which implies at least some) interbreeding....

And I will ask again: Do you agree with the evidence that we evolved from creatures that were similar to modern apes?

Well some Primatologists, like Richard Wrangham in his, Tree of Origin: What Primate behavior can tell us about Human Social Evolution, pp. 124–126, tells us that he believes the common ancestor was so chimp-like we should probably just call it Pan Prior. This is funny because even more than simply assuming we both evolved from apes (which implies Darwin was incorrect), in Wrangham’s theorized scenario we actually evolve out of a species that is mostly chimp-like which first evolved from earlier apes.

The common ancestor of chimpanzees and not just humans, but australopiths.

To quote Wrangham (p. 125):

This means... that the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans must have had the traits shared by gorillas and chimpanzees. Therefore, our Pan prior was most likely a black-haired, big-jawed, armhanging, knucklewalking species that ate seasonally available soft ripe rain-forest fruits.​

Earlier, Wrangham states:

The first big change, 5 million to 6 million years ago, was from a forest ape to an australopith. On the far side of that evolutionary bridge, we can reconstruct our ancestor as a quadrupedal, knucklewalking ape that looked much like a living chimpanzee. Still unnamed and undiscovered, this last representative of the preaustralopiths is best thought of as a member of the genus Pan. For convenience, it needs a name. So let me be cheeky and supply one. "Pan prior" seems reasonable: the early chimpanzee.​

From Wrangham's article, its clear that he's describing the evolutionary transition from that quadruped ape with gorilla and chimp-like features, to a more chimp like ancestor, to early, predominately arboreal australopiths, to later more ground dwelling and gracile australopiths (the "woodland apes"), to tool using early hominids, to H. erectus and then to H. sapiens.

There are a clear number of evolutionary steps that are processed, over 4-6 million years, between our last common ancestor with Pan and where we are now as a species.

 

[Shemjaza]

Does the existence of fertile female tigons mean there is no such thing as a tiger, and we should all just be calling them unmaned stripped Asian lions?

Species lines aren't ultra clear with closely related species, but throwing out the concept as a rhetoric flourish to discredit evolution seems silly.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why do you think the DNA evidence suggests the groups were living "together for millenia" with almost no (which implies at least some) interbreeding....

I am no expert on this, but I hear that some DNA of Neanderthals is in modern humans, so there must have been some interbreeding. See http://www.seeker.com/neanderthals-humans-interbred-dna-proves-1765052573.html .

But Neanderthals and homo sapiens sapiens remained distinct. They were living in close proximity for millenia, but remained distinct, which indicates that they probably were not very fertile when interbreeding together.

Dobhansky says we both evolved from some unknown "ape-like" ancestor (thus not an actual ape). Now Darwin believed apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor (which logically would be neither or a unique species with the propensity to become both).

But you and Wrangham ultimately believe in some version of “we evolved FROM apes” (as many posts imply). So either you are incorrect or Darwin is incorrect. Both are speculations allegedly based on evidence but only one can be true. So will you admit that you feel Darwin was wrong?

You seem to be getting too much mileage out of our choice of words. The general agreement is that there was a common ancestor of modern apes and humans. The ancestor was probably quite similar to modern apes. If one was alive to day, it would no doubt be classified as an ape. But regardless of what we call the common ancestor, or exactly what it looked like, the agreement that this ancestor existed is strong. We have fossils of many intermediates leading from this ancestor.

 

[pshun2404]

Darwin thought, "I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other…it does not essentially differ from the term variety which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms." So in effect when speaking of his finches he rightly uses the term “species” as he would describe it, thus the long and short beaked finches are ever (even now) still nothing more than VARIETIES of finches (actually passerines).

Templeton later defined species as “the most inclusive group of organisms having the potential for genetic and/or demographic exchangeability.”

Later we see Nelson’s view of species and taxa supported by D. Otte and J.A. Endler, Speciation and its Consequences (Sunderland, Massachusetts, Sinauer Press, 1989)… speaking on what constitutes a species, tells us, “problems are insoluble, for they stem from a false assumption: that there is an empirical difference between species and the taxa such that species evolve through speciation of other species.... Evolution of taxa is not a phenomenon confined to the species level, except in neo-darwinian theory, which in this respect is simply false."

Mahr said “A biological species definition, based on the criteria of crossability or reproductive isolation, has theoretically fewer flaws than any other...Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups." (Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Sapien sapiens, would all mate with one another, but never with Apes because Apes and Humans are two different species). Thus Neanderthal, Denisovan, and Sapien sapiens are merely varieties of human, not different “species”.

 

[pshun2404]

I guess it depends on how one sees it, like the cladoclast Malte Ebach, John Hawkes believes “Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys like marmosets. All of us anthropoids. But humans aren’t monkeys.“

Now first it is largely due to a difference in language (how one defines terms, and there is disagreement there as well), and secondly to a difference in predisposed perspective.


Science writer and former editor for the Dana Foundation (specializing in Neuroscience) Ben Mauk also believes “Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though humans share a common ancestor with some primates, such as the African ape…The timeline of human evolution is long and controversial, with significant gaps. Experts do not agree on many of the start and end points of various species.”


Thus any of the standard charts outlining the such a process (some as a tree, others a bush, multi foundational sources, by clade, etc.,) are replete with their shares of estimates and presupposed assumptions.


Now as to perspective, an evolutionist might say that persistent bipedalism caused the difference in the pelvis, where I would say a different pelvis (by design) caused bi-pedalism (they did it because they were made to).


Bi-pedalism is a normal characteristic for humans (but not for apes). So when the earth brought forth creatures after its own kind (evolution), there were a couple of varieties of Ape that developed or had a pelvis somewhat more akin to a human’s pelvis allowing for some bi-pedalism, but they were unsuccessful and their variety died off and became extinct. Likewise there were a few (actually only one we know of) varieties that had shoulder bones much like a human’s, but they also were unsuccessful and those ape-kind also died out and became extinct.

Nature, even though put in motion and ordered by God, was just incapable of producing God’s “mankind”. It strove through millions of years but alas it failed. Apes are to Arithmetic what Mankind is to Calculus! Both are math but Calculus is not Arithmetic.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Mahr said “A biological species definition, based on the criteria of crossability or reproductive isolation, has theoretically fewer flaws than any other...Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

OK, that is a simple definition, but as we have tried to explain to you, terms like "potentially interbreeding" are not clearly defined. Sometimes the line between species is not distinct. See, for instance, http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml .

In California there are a number of distinct salamanders that have distinct geographical domains as shown below. For simplicity, lets call them A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. A readily breeds with B. B readily breeds with C. C readily breeds with D, etc. But A and G are in close physical proximity and totally cannot breed with each other. If B-F are missing, then clearly we have 2 different species, A and G. But since all those interbreeding intermediates exist, it is more difficult to determine. You tell me, please. How many species of Salamanders do you see in this picture? That is not an easy question to answer. See link above.

(Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Sapien sapiens, would all mate with one another, but never with Apes because Apes and Humans are two different species). Thus Neanderthal, Denisovan, and Sapien sapiens are merely varieties of human, not different “species”.

How do you know humans were not a ring species?

Horses and donkeys mate with each other, but the offspring (mules) are always infertile. By your definition, are they the same species? Could it be that Neanderthals and other hominids were as distinct from each other as horses are from donkeys?