Human Evolutioin Time Line Controversies...........

[kovert]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Look around at the variation in dog breeds in just the last 500 years and you'll have your answer.

Indeed, Darwin looked to domestic animal breeders and observations of wild animals when he was formulating his theories.

He actually attributed the variation in man to cultural selection (sexual but in the spirit of C. Loring Brace I'm using the c word) rather than natural selection since the same type of phenotypic diversity seen in humans exists more in domesticated than wild animals.

[Quaker15]

Originally Posted by Supachai

The only other human subspecies is homo sapiens idaltu, which is extinct. If that population was still alive, I find it doubtful they would be classified as a separate subspecies given our current ideological climate.



So we have homo sapiens split into two subspecies. Homo sapiens idaltu, that guy above, and all living humans grouped into homo sapiens sapiens, which really makes no sense given the morphological differences that exist within the human species.

What's the difference between Homo Sapiens Idaltu and Sub-Saharan?

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

The idea that we are divided into different races based on variances in our skin pigmentation is patently absurd. There is only one race, the human race.

Tell that to the US Government.

[dirt _farmer]

The multiple spelling and grammatical errors here, including in the title, seem to indicate evolution is a very slow process, indeed.

[TheWiseWino]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

The idea that we are divided into different races based on variances in our skin pigmentation is patently absurd. There is only one race, the human race.

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

Tell that to the US Government.

There is a distinct difference between a biological construct and one that is purely a social one.