Far from there being no transitional fossils showing the evolution of modern humans from archaic ancestors, as Creationists traditionally claim, there are so many of them that they tend to confuse rather than clarify the picture
Fossils are, of course, an irregular and infrequent snapshot of an evolving species over time, so palaeontologists always have a problem of slotting a new species into existing classifications because there is never a sharp delineation between an ancestral form and a descendant one. It's a bit like trying to determine exactly where one colour changes to another in a rainbow.
Where does the colour change?
So, the tendency has been to name a new find which is significantly different to any others, as a new species, with a name often derived from the place where they were discovered - the scientific equivalent of naming it 'Heidelberg Man' or 'Rhodesia Man'. This is even more problematic if the species is widespread and subject to regional variation, consequently, definitions can be fuzzy and confusing as newer finds are slotted into pre-existing types, each new type broadening and blurring the definition of that species.
Talking about human evolution during this time period became impossible due to the lack of proper terminology that acknowledges human geographic variation.
Naming a new species is a big deal, as the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature allows name changes only under very strictly defined rules.
This international team led by Dr. Mirjana Roksandic from Winnipeg University, Canada has clarified and simplified this muddle in the middle based on latest research and DNA analysis where DNA has been recovered and analysed. They looked especially at specimens that had been classified as Homo heidelbergensis or H. rhodesiensis, both of which carried multiple, often contradictory definitions. European specimens previously classified as H. heidelbergensis have been shown by DNA analysis to be early H. neanderthalensis, while H. rhodesiensis, named when Zimbabwe was still a British colony called Southern Rhodesia, has a name which is too closely associated with Cecil Rhodes and some of the more despicable and brutal aspects of Britain's former imperialism in Africa. Naming a new species is a big deal, as the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature allows name changes only under very strictly defined rules.
Dr Mirjana Roksandic, co-first author
Palaeoanthropologist
Winnipeg University, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Palaeoanthropologist
Winnipeg University, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
As the Winnipeg University news release explains: