Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Raymann
That makes two if us. I don't keep up with the creationist explanations at all, except for the occaisonal act of self defense (AND I'm a Christian, creationism isn't a requirement).

I personally lean toward H. Sapiens, isolated and attempting to adapt, but that still doesn't make them a different species. In order to be a different species, your branch loses the ability to readily reproduce with the branch you left. On the other hand, the argument for forced adaptation is pretty easy, considering the history of the region. The little buggers are surrounded by just too much hype right now for more than just spirited argument, though my biologist daughter and I have kept up on the Floriensis news ever since their discovery was broke in the news.

35 posted on 04/09/2010 5:04:26 PM PDT by cake_crumb (President Reagan on ObieCare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&feature=player_embedded#)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: cake_crumb

I’m not saying you’re wrong but if that speciman is typical for that species, it’s not an H. Sapien. Also consider that even pushing it, few consider H. Sapians to be more then 100,000 years old and this fossil is 2 million. Also keep in mind that lions and tigers can reproduce (although the offspring can’t) and no one considers them the same species.


37 posted on 04/09/2010 5:19:13 PM PDT by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson