3 ms·
Why? He quite clearly states that " All modern humans are clearly, morphologically H. sapiens." Do you suspect that further research along this line will dispro
by sirtaj 5y ago
Why? He quite clearly states that " All modern humans are clearly, morphologically H. sapiens." Do you suspect that further research along this line will disprove this?
- anonporridge 5y agoI think it's just a bad article title that doesn't explicitly clarify that we're not talking about existing, modern homo sapiens. Piddling about the taxonomy of extinct species isn't problematic, but I could see a mob misinterpret this as him saying that not all living humans belong to the same species, and go on a witch hunt over the misunderstanding. However, if some evidence started emerging that modern humans were not all the same species (whatever that actually means in practice) then I think the above comment applies. No one with a reputation to protect would touch that bit of truth with a ten foot pole.
- twofornone 5y agoBecause the implication of his writings is that it would be consistent with taxonomic treatment of other animals to classify certain existing groups of humans as different subspecies or species. Which strays too closely to so called racism.