The Baha'i Studies Listserv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo That's applying human to liberally. What measure is a non-human is a philosophical question, but it's a pun or a play on words to say only genus Homo are humans rather than including the prior six listed geni (or genuses?) as well. It's also a huge gap to say australophithecus and homo are humans while ignoring the geni (or genuses) in between. The list of human evolution fossils is a list of fossils, their species (and genus), their period, and their location. Periods include: Miocene, Piocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene. Pleistocene is Paloelithic and Holocene is both Mesolithic and Neolithic. Sahelanthropus is Miocene period. Orrorin is Miocene period. Aridipithecus is Piocene period. Australopithecus is Piocene period. Kenyanthropus is Piocene period. Paranthropus is Pleistocene period. Homo is Pleistocene period. ________________________________ From: Hasan Elías <hasanel...@yahoo.com> To: Baha'i Studies <bahai-st@list.jccc.edu> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:44 AM Subject: Re: Humans (Homo genus, Homo sapiens sapiens and other subspecies) The Baha'i Studies Listserv There is no authoritative statement about this. My GUESS is that all homo were capable of receiving a Prophet. Also Autstrolophitecus afarensis because they were not mere animals. Hasan ________________________________ De: Stephen Kent Gray <skg_z...@yahoo.com> Para: Baha'i Studies <bahai-st@list.jccc.edu> Enviado: Miércoles, 20 de febrero, 2013 4:32 P.M. Asunto: Humans (Homo genus, Homo sapiens sapiens and other subspecies) The Baha'i Studies Listserv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human Homo sapiens sapiens (Humans as we know them today) Other subspecies Homo sapiens idaltu Homo sapiens antecessor Homo sapiens heidelbergensis Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Homo sapiens rhodesiensis So should subspecies or species nomeclature be used? Why? Sent from my iPad __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:arch...@mail-archive.com Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:leave-690038-27401.54f46e81b66496c9909bcdc2f7987...@list.jccc.edu Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to ly...@list.jccc.edu Or subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News (on-campus only) - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
