about the relationship between lions and tigers:

Quote:

...since they can interbreed. Meaning they're actually the same species. In this case, this can be easily explained simply by saying that they descended from the same kind. A more generalized cat. Ask anyone who's done breeding experiments.



You propose that Lions and tigers are the same species? I hardly think so. Every lion I've talked with says he is definitely not the same species as a tiger!

In fact what you've done is tacitly accepted evolution, because breeding experiments are in fact a version of forced evolution, with natural selection being replaced by human selection. Dogs for instance may still be one species, but if given many centuraies of continued breding, there is no doubt that they would speciate.

Homo Erectus is clearly not the same species as Homo Sapiens, there are too many morphological differences.

While brains size in modern humans is not necessarily indicative of intelligience in any specific case (microcephaly being the pathological exception), there is a great deal of evidence showing that as homonins evolved into modern humans, brain size increased in a clear curve upward.

Even supposeing Homo Erectus was a subspecies of homo sapiens ( no scientist i know takes this positions though), there are other cases that cant possibly be Homo Sapiens: what about Homo Habilis? Or H. Ergaster, H.Heidelbergensis? Not to mention the many pre-homo species, such as the austrolopithicines. There may not yet be a clear agreement on the exact lines of human descent, but that it occurred is universally accepted in science.

ITo hold a position denying the evidence of human evolution requires an untenable line of reasoning:

1) All hominins must either be H. Sapiens, or entirely unrelated species.
2) Because we can't accept evolutionary gradation, there is must then be a bright line dividing Humans from non-Humans.
3) This line must be based solely on morphology and cultural evidence because we have no genetic data form the ealier specimens, and even if we did, we deny all genetic evidence anyway.
4) Morphology unfortunately clearly indicates gradation, with no clear line between any one specimen.
5) So we must rely on cultural data, such as tool making, burial practices, art, etc.

The earliest stone tools are several million years old, so must assume that modern humans existed that far back(and science again disagrees emphatically), since no non-human should be able to make tools according to our line of reasoning.

Unfortunately, we are back where we started, because tool-making is clearly not a good indicator of biological evolution.

Therefore, there is no way to divide the humans from non-humans in any clear way. Thus we left with making suppositions about brain size and so on. But since brain size increased on an upward curve, we can find no means to conclude that humans are different fomr ealier human-like forms in any major way, rather only by degree.

This seperation by degree is what we find repeatedly, in morphology, genetics and culture. All this points to a gradual change--evolution.

Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.