>sorce of variation? From an evolutionary point it is one thing; from a
>creationist point it is another. Why do you always assume the Naturalistic
>version of data? Isn't that what the term "bias" was invented to convey?
>Isn't that just what Mr. Phil Johnson has said is going on all the time? Why
do you keep confirming his hypothesis by example?
The term "racial variant" in biology implies the ability to interbreed with
other 'racial variants' of the same species (i.e.dog and coyote). If
H.erectus was a 'racial variant' of humans, then we should have been able to
produce fertile offspring. Otherwise we are not racial variants but variant
species. Get your biology correct.
As I mentioned there is evidence of erectus-like traits in the skulls of
certain modern peoples. This is evidence of interbreeding just as your looks
are evidence of your descent from your parents.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm