This may be an unsophisticated argument in this form but it is compelling.
I'd like to see a (polite) debate between a well-informed proponent and a mainstream biologist.
I'd like to see a (polite) debate between a well-informed proponent and a mainstream biologist.
Why is it bullshit? Doesn't it make sense to apply the same standards to the study of humans and animals?
Why are similar-looking birds "different species" but different-looking humans not?
I realise that this might be a stupid question to someone with formal education and/or experience in this area, but I don't have either, that's why I am asking.
Come to think of it though, the examples might well be cherry-picked.
I realise that this might be a stupid question to someone with formal education and/or experience in this area, but I don't have either, that's why I am asking.
Come to think of it though, the examples might well be cherry-picked.
>different human species
Do you mean Neanderthals, homo sapiens, Denisovans etc?
Do you mean Neanderthals, homo sapiens, Denisovans etc?