Yes, but such physical differences in human fossils do not justify neo-Darwinists classifying any human ancestors as a different or extinct species any more than other physical differences between people today would justify neo-Darwinist racism.
The physical difference in human fossils is not all we have to go by, but they are the basis for the original classification. In the words of song: "Is You Is Or Is You Ain't..." you are either a neanderthal or you are not. You are not, they are extinct.
Only as a neo-Darwinst 'species.' If Neanderthal Man wasn't a separate 'species' at all but simply a human being who gradually devolped and metamorphized into Heidleberg Man and then Modern Man due to climate and dietary changes after the Ice age was over, then he is no more extinct than the original Americans or Aborigines are.
The neo-Darwinists certainly don't define species differently than anyone else as far as I know. Do you have any source references that would show that neo-Darwinists use the term differently than others? The definition of species is a group of related organisms capable of interbreding. If you want to contend that H. heidelbergensis
is a descendant of neanderthal man then you'll have to come up with some real evidence. So far scientists pretty much agree it's the other way around.
They don't exist as they looked in the human fossil record which identifies a certain morphology as Neanderthalish but fails to realize and recognize Heidleberg Man as Neanderthal Man after the Ice Age was over.
So all those scientists classifying hominid remains made a collective oopsie that you've managed to catch? I'm sure they're all grateful but have you presented any actual evidence to them? I mean sure...they're just a bunch of neo-Darwinists...(what could they possibly know huh?)...but you should be able to show all this evidence that points to the truth.
We know all sorts of things about the development of modern humans from our ancestors. We even have evidence that H. sapiens
and neanderthal didn't interbreed much (Currat and Excoffier, 2004 Modern Humans Did Not Admix with Neanderthals during Their Range Expansion into Europe
... oh.. by the way, this is a reference to an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in case you've never seen one before) and certainly neanderthal isn't a major player in our past as would be required if we were all directly descended from neanderthal Noah and his crew.
Sorry. I don't believe in science fiction stories about hominoids even 30 thousand years ago.
But you are willing to believe one author who has gathered an immense amount of criticism for sloppy...even dishonest work? Well I guess as long as he believes what you believe he must be right. You could shorten that sentence to: "Sorry I don't believe in science."
That depends on who put them in the monkey closet to begin with. Since humans may be classified in their own family taxon, there is no need for creationists to be in the same family tree with neo-Darwinists.
You can't be serious.
You really are seeped in neo-Darwinist indoctrination and dogma, aren't you?
It's what happens when you try to actually read and understand the source material.
When you talk about millions of hominid years to creationists, you only get raised eyebrows and knowing looks cast about.
I would classify those as unknowing
Oh, I see. Just spout some neo-Darwinist racial theories about the origins of Asians and Caucasians in Africa and the matter is settled.
As opposed to what? Spouting creationist racial thoeries(and that's stretching the use of the word theory farther than I like) about origins? I'm very sorry you believe that neo-Darwinists are some sort of cult...there isn't even a neo-Darwinist club; no membership cards, no perqs, no annual conventions filled with every imaginable form of sin and vice. Not even bingo. More evidence and less assertion would be appreciated.