I'm talking about differences in present-day classifications.


Around 200,000 years ago, there was one sort of early humans living in Europe (the Neanderthals), and one or a few different ones in Africa (depending on how strictly we define "sort" and "around 200,000 years ago"). There were a couple sorts more around in Asia.

The Neanderthals are now usually considered a separate species - Homo neanderthalensis - but for a long time were usually and still are occasionally considered a subspecies of our own - H. sapiens neanderthalensis. The African sort(s) look a bit more like us than what the Neanderthals did, and are usually considered part of Homo sapiens (but not of our subspecies H. s. sapiens), but some would consider them, too, as representing one or more separate species (under names such as H. rhodesiensis).

From about 196,000 years ago date the fossils from Omo, which represent a major step towards anatomical modernity, and some would consider these to be H. sapiens, while excluding earlier African types (who stay around in the fossil record for a long time after the arrival of the more modern sort).

The debate is mostly academic - akin, in a way, to debate about the definition of "planet". Those who think a given individual belong or does not belong to a given species does not necessarily disagree about anything regarding its anatomical features or genealogical position.


Does that answer your question? Wikipedia has articles on most of these types and putative species, but the quality is variable and the terminology is inconsistent between different articles.


Edit: Also, some would restrict the name H. neanderthalensis to the "classical" Neanderthals of the last glacial period, in which case the European early humans of 200,000 years ago are classified as H. heidelbergensis.

__________________
Science is like sex. Sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.
-- Richard Feynman

Let me know when they find that elusive black monolith on the moon...its 8 years overdue!

To quote Avery Brooks from an IBM ad, "It is the year 2000. But where are the flying cars? I was promised a flying car!"
And by the way, welcome to BAUT forum, steveira.

__________________

emph mine

The part in bold is the most important part I think.

__________________
Don't wrestle with a pig; you'll both get muddy and the pig enjoys it.
- JayUtah

Never try to reason with a pig. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
- tsig
------------------------------------------------------------
Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about

Apollo didn't just find it occasionally. NASA knows more, since they hid this for 60 years. They went to that specific spot because they knew there is interesting material there. The wings look to small to lift her in a flight. Maybe they were just decorative. Who knows.

Or maybe it's just a work of fiction in a tabloid that runs fictional 'news' stories. It's about as literally truthful as The Onion. This is from the same tabloid that invented Batboy, for Peters sake!

__________________

Gaaah! We've had a misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about some present day Africans. Which is why I got all excited. Sorry.

__________________

Apollo 11 landed on the Moon in 1969, that's 40 years ago, not 60.

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

That's just what they want you to believe.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Did you read the thread? The story is fiction. But if you think you have some evidence for this claim, please present it.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Ah. I suppose I expressed myself poorly in post #6 - rereading it I can see how someone would take "contemporary" as meaning today rather contemporary with Neanderthals.

__________________
Science is like sex. Sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.
-- Richard Feynman

apollo missions 11-17 went to the lunar equator, and missed the good stuff...plato, aristarcus,timocharis....

People in the know have known since around 1733 of a moon atmosphere..all you need is a telescope and look up, you will see the grazing occultations of the stars as the moon moves..

And now to all the wolves, was the mission(s) to the moon just to look and leave, or to colonize the moon? Was skylab and mir the mission, or was having a base on the moon the mission? apollo 11 signalled the end, the 1st flag planting proved there was wind..and for nasa to say water on the moon in 1998, must have been too classified in the late 50's for us huh?

ok, water, atmosphere and still go skylab and mir? only reason for the dead moon ideology, is because it is harder to explain the obvious, especially by the quacks that think we are never ready for the truth...i expect the wolves and spin doctors on this board, no experts, as usual.

And I expect you'll be using these terms to describe anybody who disagrees with you, no matter how obviously knowledgable they are.

I must admit, it's unusual to cite the "moving flag" as evidence for an atmosphere on the moon rather than a moon hoax. But it's still a case of misinterpreting a detail that is well understood and has been explained many times.

The moon with an atmosphere is quite an appealing fantasy, but the reality is ultimately more interesting.

I hope not.

More fantastic.

Seriously?

An atmosphere so thin its total weight is about 10 tons, and it's visible from Earth?

Wow.

What? The flags raised on the Apollo missions prove the Moon has an atmosphere? Er, no, they don't. The flags hung from horizontal bars like curtains from a curtain rail. Their rumpled appearance came from being tightly folded up for the flight to the Moon.

And where do you get the idea that NASA has known since the 1950s that there was water on the Moon? I understand the presence of water on the Moon is still far from proven.

I don't think I'm either a wolf or a spin doctor. I'm just a curious individual who'd like to see your evidence for the presence of water and an atmosphere on the Moon.

LAFEE, piknar, TRUTHisnotfacts

I am excited by the number of prospective poker players I see gathering here. I'll provide the chips and chips. (See earlier article.)

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

About the flag, as opposed to the rest of flags, as the 1st flag is different than the rest that were utilised. You have to ask why nasa chose to change the type of flag from the 1st type of flag? why was it so important to make sure the rest of the flags didn't behave the same way as the 1st one.

In what way was Apollo 11's flag different from those used on later missions?

Which people specifically?

Nasa was formed in 1958. It was the zeitgeist of the day, the moon. When about to send humans to the moon, there was much surveying before, by the US and USSR. We didn't need clementine(military mission) to tell us what pioneer, ranger, surveyor and luna missions were striving to answer for our apollo missions. simple as saying you don't jump over the fence/wall before knowing what is on the other side.

True, the govt view it is still not proven.

The 1st was a flag as any normal flag, while the rest had wire mesh to make sure there was no wave and to re-inforce the no atmosphere, dead moon ideology.

I am near enough 100% certain I will not get a decent answer to this question, but...

Why would anybody think we are "not ready" to be told that the moon has an atmosphere?

computer bits is a wolf/spin doctor to me. after reading his posts, it is what i feel about 01001010.

Because if it was common mainstream knowledge, than we would have to explain why we have ceased to try to colonize the moon with moonbases.

Now I get to ask a question of you, why cease in 1972 to want to colonize(not just US, but USSR too) the moon, if in 1961 that was the original goal of both?

I don't think the government decides scientific facts. I think scientists do.

Evidence please.

In any case, the US flag's behaviour is hardly the main evidence about the Moon's atmosphere or lack thereof.

For example, how did the Lunar Module land on the Moon if the Moon has an atmosphere?

How is it possible that amateur astronomers around the world haven't spotted and reported the Moon's atmosphere?

Who says colonising the Moon was the original goal of the USA and the USSR? Kennedy's challenge was to land men on the Moon and return them safely to the Earth. That's not colonising.

Anyway, read any history of Apollo, and you'll know why Apollo ended in 1972 - the public got bored with Apollo and Congress cut NASA's budget.

You do not have to explain why you "ceased" to do something if you did not start it in the first place.

Besides, if someone can keep secret something as colossal as a thick atmosphere on the moon, it must be very easy for them to come up with a reason why we are not colonising it.

Answered succintly and accurately by Peter B.

Sounds like you trying to sell me the single bullet theory.

And scientists do not decide anything, if they did, our world wouldn't be in such a mess.

I'm not even going to ask what that has to do with anything being discussed here.