Homo luzonensis on the human family tree

-Homo habilis and rudolfensis needs to be placed in their own genus
-Homo erectus needs to be split into several species. The african one being Homo ergaster.
-European Homo heidelbergensis is ancestral to neanderthals only. Whereas the african variants are a distinct species called Homo rhodosiensis and are closer to sapiens.

Maybe I should un-ban him.
He got a little 'over enthused' in his comments and started spamming me too.

You banned him? Some of the comments between u two were comical. This stream cud do with some healthy debate.
imgflip.com/i/8tvuri?nerp=1718434136
What do u think?

He starts off ok, but then he gets out of control, then he starts chasing me like on politics talking about Neanderthals or zebras without them having to do with the topic of the meme. They have to ban him from this or another of my streams and maybe block him too because then it's just a column of notifications and they're all just repeating the same Tolkein-ized crap. Even when I explained it to me still keeps getting what I said wrong. He's not well.

Here's a prime example, a classic. I just found out somebody else chimed in after:

imgflip.com/i/73ojme

Then perhaps you should get on it and rewrite the entire science of Anthropology gleaned from your findings in video games.

Oh, and you forgot your usual argument that all only Homo sapiens are the single only unique solitary single members of that genus.

Findings in videogames?? Wdym?
Also hominin taxonomy is a mess. I only gave advice on things that need to be corrected.
And my argument wasnt that Homo sapien was the only species of the Homo genus. Just that it should be the only one to be called human. And that was just my opinion.

Did you forget:

The Orcian Chronicles: How Cartoon Characters from Lord of the Rings Got into World of Warcraft Then Falsely Got Categorized As Prehistoric Men, by LordZerostrike98

Gosh, just be glad you weren't around a decade or so ago when Neanderthals where actually considered at most a subspecies of Homo sapiens in terms of how distantly related they were. There was no Homo neanderthalensis, it used to be Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

450,000 years split apart, if not (a lot) more, and it was just a variant. Meanwhile American elk and Red deer split apart 10,000 years ago, and they're considered different species. Same with real elk and mooses, wild asses, various bighorn sheep... on separate mountains for a few thousand years, and they're different species. Or not.

Or my favorite, domesticated dogs are classified as a different species than wolves, even though domesticated dogs are supposed to be domesticated wolves, even though real live wild dog dogs (Dingos, New Guinea whistling dogs, Canaan, Carolina yellow dog, etc) all revert to the same tawny type after thousands of years of supposedly being merely feral, yet never revert to true wolf types- and that's including those, like the Canaan and Carolina yellow dogs, that literally have lived side by side by gray wolf populations. Wild pets, but even after thousands of years were never reabsorbed back into their parents species. Yeah, makes sense.

Homo sapiens? More like Homo stupidenses.

"The Orcian Chronicles: How Cartoon Characters from Lord of the Rings Got into World of Warcraft Then Falsely Got Categorized As Prehistoric Men, by LordZerostrike98"

I dont remember that ever happening. Even if it did that would be along time ago.

Yes,neanderthals where formerly considered to be the same species humans. But now its confirmed they are a distinct species.

Also dogs most likely need to be reclassified as a wolf subspecies. And a dingo is taxonomically problematic.

Also habilis and rudolfensis may in fact be the same species.