nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is incorrect: A genius?
:::The issue is what the correct naming is. When you are using a scientific name for an organism like Homo sapiens, you list it as genius then species. The title here is incorrect, if we remove it then continue to use Homo sapiens neanderthalensis we would still be wrong. What CPWebmaster did was basically reclassify that species Neanderthal is. He has placed it on the same level as Asian, White, Black ect. If this were true then the extinction of Neanderthal would have also provided the extinction of the whites in the same areas.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The issue is what the correct naming is. When you are using a scientific name for an organism like Homo sapiens, you list it as genius then species. The title here is incorrect, if we remove it then continue to use Homo sapiens neanderthalensis we would still be wrong. What CPWebmaster did was basically reclassify that species Neanderthal is. He has placed it on the same level as Asian, White, Black ect. If this were true then the extinction of Neanderthal would have also provided the extinction of the whites in the same areas.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: You think that Homo sapiens is a genius?
:::: Seriously, I haven't checked the references, but I think I'm correct in saying that secular scientists have at some time in the past classified Neanderthal Man as fully human (i.e. Homo sapiens Neanderthalis), also that some people still consider him that, and ''possibly'' even that some of that second group are secular scientists.
:::: So wouldn't it be better to explain all that (or whatever the precise story is) in the body of the article, and not "take sides" by choosing one of the titles for the article title?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
==History according to Creationists==
==History according to Creationists==