Is Erectus an anatomically modern human?

[Papias]

But why do you keep classifying the infraspecific taxa within a species as separate species.

A red herring (especially since I didn't classify anything).

We have the fossil evidence. We all know that you can't get an exact species designation from closely transitional fossils because it's difficult to get fossils to breed in the lab.

We see a clear transition over time in lineage after lineage, including this example. That's why it so easy to see that your word salad looks like nothing more than attempt to confuse people in the face of clear evidence of evolution.

Here's the data. If you like, feel free to decide on whatever species names you want - it doesn't change the data.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A red herring (especially since I didn't classify anything).

So you disagree with their classifications? Then talk about red herrings and obfuscation.......

We have the fossil evidence. We all know that you can't get an exact species designation from closely transitional fossils because it's difficult to get fossils to breed in the lab.

Except they are not transitional. They are incorrect classifications of the different infraspecific taxa that exist in every species. It is this incorrect classification of the infraspecific taxa that leads you to your incorrect beliefs in transitionals. Just as if we incorrectly listed Mastiff and Husky as separate species, we could come to the incorrect conclusion that they were transitional to the Chinook when we classified it incorrectly as a separate species.

So then since you never observed them in real life and can not observe wether they could breed or not, then your classifications are all arbitrary and based upon desire, not what may be true or not?

We see a clear transition over time in lineage after lineage, including this example. That's why it so easy to see that your word salad looks like nothing more than attempt to confuse people in the face of clear evidence of evolution.

No, you see clear infraspecific taxa classified incorrectly as separate species. That you know by looking at all life on this planet that infraspecific taxa abound in every species, then can't admit you have none in the fossil record so the classifications must be incorrect, shows your unwillingness to accept reality.

Here's the data. If you like, feel free to decide on whatever species names you want - it doesn't change the data.

In Christ-

Papias

It changes everything drastically since most of them are not separate species, but merely infraspecific taxa within the species. This incorrect labeling of infraspecific taxa is what leads you to your false belief of gradual change.

You are not seeing separate species, but infraspecific taxa within two separate species that you have confused as separate species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you disagree with their classifications? Then talk about red herrings and obfuscation.......



Except they are not transitional. They are incorrect classifications of the different infraspecific taxa that exist in every species. It is this incorrect classification of the infraspecific taxa that leads you to your incorrect beliefs in transitionals. Just as if we incorrectly listed Mastiff and Husky as separate species, we could come to the incorrect conclusion that they were transitional to the Chinook when we classified it incorrectly as a separate species.

So then since you never observed them in real life and can not observe wether they could breed or not, then your classifications are all arbitrary and based upon desire, not what may be true or not?



No, you see clear infraspecific taxa classified incorrectly as separate species. That you know by looking at all life on this planet that infraspecific taxa abound in every species, then can't admit you have none in the fossil record so the classifications must be incorrect, shows your unwillingness to accept reality.



It changes everything drastically since most of them are not separate species, but merely infraspecific taxa within the species. This incorrect labeling of infraspecific taxa is what leads you to your false belief of gradual change.

You are not seeing separate species, but infraspecific taxa within two separate species that you have confused as separate species.

Wrong again. You can't demonstrate that claim with a peer reviewed article that agrees with you. But I see that this is your new favorite error to use. Just because you finally learned how to use a technical term does not give your post any credibility at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you disagree with their classifications? Then talk about red herrings and obfuscation.......



Except they are not transitional. They are incorrect classifications of the different infraspecific taxa that exist in every species. It is this incorrect classification of the infraspecific taxa that leads you to your incorrect beliefs in transitionals. Just as if we incorrectly listed Mastiff and Husky as separate species, we could come to the incorrect conclusion that they were transitional to the Chinook when we classified it incorrectly as a separate species.

So then since you never observed them in real life and can not observe wether they could breed or not, then your classifications are all arbitrary and based upon desire, not what may be true or not?



No, you see clear infraspecific taxa classified incorrectly as separate species. That you know by looking at all life on this planet that infraspecific taxa abound in every species, then can't admit you have none in the fossil record so the classifications must be incorrect, shows your unwillingness to accept reality.



It changes everything drastically since most of them are not separate species, but merely infraspecific taxa within the species. This incorrect labeling of infraspecific taxa is what leads you to your false belief of gradual change.

You are not seeing separate species, but infraspecific taxa within two separate species that you have confused as separate species.

How do you determine what species a fossil belongs to? What are the criteria you use?

How do you determine if individuals separated by millions of years belong to the same species? What are the criteria that you use?