nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 174:
Line 174: +
→Logic: On the comparison with horses and donkeys
::::The suggestion that they were human seems extremely controversial indeed. Whilst there is some evidence the two could interbreed, they no more make them the same species as a donkey and a horse. I would suggest the suggestions about comparable size can also be compered to whether donkeys and horses would be considered the same species.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 13:30, 06 September 2007 (EDT)
::::The suggestion that they were human seems extremely controversial indeed. Whilst there is some evidence the two could interbreed, they no more make them the same species as a donkey and a horse. I would suggest the suggestions about comparable size can also be compered to whether donkeys and horses would be considered the same species.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 13:30, 06 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Even secular scientists at one time (or more than once, I think) considered them human. Now that doesn't mean that it's not "extremely controversial", but it puts it in context, that the controversy is over which side of a quite fine line they fall. As for the comparison between the donkey/horse differences, I would remind you that "species" is a somewhat-artificial distinction anyway. I'm not sure of your point about the size difference between donkeys and horses, as true horses come in a range of sizes, from smaller than the average donkey to larger. Size is not a determinant of species, except in cases such as fossils where the prime determinant (interfertility) is not available. But again, the donkey/horse comparison shows that using size as a determinant can be quite misleading. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 23 September 2007 (EDT)