Why is it any different for Homo habilis?
As the fossil record approaches 2,000,000 years old, the trail is spotty and there are several (known) candidates. They resemble each other closely enough that one can easily imagine either being ancestral (sort of like comparing a Viking and a Roman at A. D. 450; either could be ancestral to a given Irishman). They are different enough from others alive at the time (Australopithecus boisei for example) that we can feel pretty good about considering boisei a distant relative, not a direct ancestor (but still interesting, and informative about what hominids of the period were like–just as the Tasmanian I mentioned above would still be part of the broad vision of “human history” though not being ancestral to nearly all those living today [Europeans essentially exterminated the Tasmanians within the last 150 years]).
- There are something biological difference between the different classes of people such as negroes, mongoloid etc etc. Now tell me one thing, among human being, which class is the most biologically developed?
- How is anthropology different from the other social sciences?
- Why is it any different for Homo habilis?