“It’s implied it could be something like Homo erectus or similar…”
My comment: Evidently, others are willing to dismiss the evidence from the fossil record that Homo speciation has not occurred during the past 1.8 million years. That means the “Mystery Relatives” exemplified a data-driven model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation, which means that this type of story is the typical nonsense of theorists. Serious scientists recently provided us with the report excerpted below.
“When seen from the Dmanisi perspective, morphological diversity in the African fossil Homo record around 1.8 Ma probably reflects variation between demes of a single evolving lineage, which is appropriately named H. erectus. The hypothesis of multiple independent lineages (paleospecies) (15, 31) appears less parsimonious, especially in the absence of empirical evidence for adaptation to separate ecological niches.”
My comment: The picture (below) from the article about ‘sex with Mystery Relatives” is worth 10,000 words. If it indicates to you that the evolutionary theory about differences in our ancestors accurately represents what is currently known about ecological variation and adaptation in species from microbes to man, your head is probably filled with more than 10,000 words of nonsensical theory taught to you by evolutionary theorists.
A girl goes nose-to-nose with a Neanderthal statue in Germany. Ancient DNA research is increasingly revealing the genetic links between modern humans and our extinct ancestors, including Neanderthals and the mysterious Denisovans. Credit: Neanderthal Museum (Mettmann, Germany)
But wait, there’s more theory to be digested (or regurgitated if you’re a theorist who simply accepts this nonsense).
My comment: What’s interesting about extraordinary claims like this is that there is never any experimental evidence to support them, and yet some people accept the claims as if they could be placed into the context of what is currently known about ecological adaptations sans mutation-initiated natural selection. Instead, we have sexual selection in pigs and monkeys or sexual selection in modern humans and the non-human primates that supposedly were the origin of our species via descent with modification. Anyone who objects to such portrayals, which appear to be based on Darwinian theory, is liable to be attacked for their “Creationist” beliefs.
“Creationist” beliefs are reported to be unscientific. However, Dobzhansky (1973) wrote the widely touted article [link opens full text pdf]: “Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” Evolutionary theorists enjoy citing his review because they think Dobzhansky supported their ridiculous opinions about the theory of evolution. They don’t realize that Dobzhansky was a Creationist, who had already stated clearly what he thought about theorists in “Biology, molecular and organismic.” He wrote: “The notion has gained some currency that the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is “bird watching” or “butterfly collecting.” Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!”
