Huntster Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 3 minutes ago, norseman said: 5) To sharpen #3….. She could be an unknown species in the genus Homo........ This is precisely what I believe her to be. Quote ........ Or she could be an unknown species that is not in the genus Homo but maybe the Australopithecus genus? Or the Paranthropus genus? All bipedal upright walking hominids. Closely related to Homo Sapiens........... Very possible, but a different genus does not pose the legal challenges that another human does.
norseman Posted 2 hours ago Admin Posted 2 hours ago 12 minutes ago, Huntster said: This is precisely what I believe her to be. Very possible, but a different genus does not pose the legal challenges that another human does. I think it remains to be seen what legalities are in effect if she is not Homo Sapien. Which I believe she is not. There simply is no precedent.
Huntster Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 40 minutes ago, norseman said: I think it remains to be seen what legalities are in effect if she is not Homo Sapien. Which I believe she is not. There simply is no precedent. There is a precedent: Zana. But I also do not believe Patty was homo sapien. But I believe that she was of the genus Homo.
MIB Posted 22 minutes ago Moderator Posted 22 minutes ago 2 hours ago, norseman said: Or she could be an unknown species that is not in the genus Homo but maybe the Australopithecus genus? Or the Paranthropus genus? The issue I see with those compared to Homo is there is nothing in the fossil record more recent than 1.2 million years ago for them yet Homo exists today as .. us. So while not completely impossible, Occam's Razor points pretty strongly to BF being Homo .. at least among those 3 options. There are also no LARGE monkey fossils in the new world, nothing known over 50 pounds. In any case other than Homo "something" we have a big gap in the fossil record to account for. That doesn't make it a certainty but it does make it the most likely. Further, if BF is a very close cousin, the DNA would hide in plain sight most likely being discarded as human with quirks by science. We have a good fit answer. It might or might not be right but it doesn't seem rational to me to keep trying to focus the search away from the most probable answer rather than investigate it as exactly that, the most probable. I think there are some people who trying to drive an artificial wedge between BF and human and are deliberately ignoring what science tells us is most probable. MIB
Recommended Posts