Is Erectus an anatomically modern human?

Justatruthseeker said:

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

Click to expand...

Papias said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Justatruthseeker said:

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.

Click to expand...

Justatruthseeker said:

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.

Click to expand...