...from the 2nd answer in your link:
"The ability to produce fertile offspring is the defining characteristic of a species."
We know that HS Neanderthalensis, and HS Denisovan both successfully bread with(produced fertile offspring with) HS Sapiens.
So, if Devin is accurate, then we are one species.
True?
........
(but, then again, Devin could be wrong?)
bred, not bread
Correct, since HS neanderthals and HS sapien successfully interbred (apparently extensively), we are the same species, just variants thereof. Same with HS denisovan, and likely others not yet fully described.
While Bells is correct that 'conehead' can come about by birthing, she does not address the volume issue. Distorting a HS sapiens skull (by birthing, or post-partum shaping) to produce a conehead does not appreciably change the volume. The longheads cited in this thread by me are typically about double the volume of HS sapien.
The query is - is this indication of a variant of HS sapiens along the lines of neanderthal, denisovan, etc.? DNA tests need to be done on the extensive skin tissue remaining on many of the skulls.
One can imagine that a few recessive genes (even one), when paired on both chromosomes, could lead to skull elongation. That alone would not be indicative of a new variant/species. In a population requiring pairing of the recessives to manifest skull elongation, one would imagine that most offspring would not express the recessive gene(s). If the population favored that recessive gene(s), over time it would become more abundant in the population (standard genetics). Sociologically, those born without skull elongation might seek such artificially, which we also see with that particular population (and others around the globe) by artificial boarding of infant skulls.
By ignoring 'uncomfortable' facts, science leaves room for non-scientists to conjecture wildly. Likewise, science censorship (or threatened censorship) does not advance science and plays into the stream of the non-scientist's wild conjectures.