What?
Have you looked at the skulls, and the skeletons where available? They are far from just variations in modern humans. Go back and really look at the structure of the skulls.
"It's not so surprising, really; you should by now know that creationists believe the "missing links" are really either fully ape or fully human, none of this in-between stuff.
They are basing their opinion on their deep rooted fear of being wrong, not on a dispassionate examination of all the skulls available.
Funny how Baraminology focuses primarily on differences to determine classification but when differences show a gradual change Creationists want to lump them all together based on similarities.
"Honestly, just because a skull slopes a little more, does that make someone less or more of a monkey? That's what the racists of old thought. (No, I'm not calling you a racist.)
Within the normal variation of Homo sapiens skulls of course not. But the skulls (skeletons) of Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and even Homo neanderthalensis are well outside normal (or not so normal) variation within Homo sapiens.
It isn't just the external shape of the skull but the brain cavity, the neck attachment, the teeth, and much of the rest of the skeleton that defines each species. In addition, the habits, the tools used, art produced, burial practices all show different levels of conscious thought and communication.
Baraminology is nothing more than the Biblical "kinds" put into different words to try to make it "scientific." Traditional science examines the world as it is, while baraminology interprets the data in terms of religious belief.
Modern science examines organisms and follows the data wherever it leads. Creation “scientists” examine the same organisms and formulate a classification scheme designed to accommodate the Biblical version of creation, right down to a young earth and the global flood--in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary!
One of the leading advocates of "baraminology," Wayne Frair, provides us with some guidelines:
GuidelinesIn accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:
1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). [emphasis added]
Hmmmm. Sure doesn't sound much like science to me.