In the future read the entire comment before attempting to correct someone as it was covered.

Notice I said: This means aside from us there are 7 that were "early human species". Notice I used works like " known".

Now why did I include other hominids? simple to cover the debate on when and where the term human should be applied.

Why did I bother? It is not as cut and dry as you are asserting my dude.

Ask yourself what defines a human? Ask yourself how can we infer such things from something as simple as a tooth? Ask yourself what kind of argument is being presented.

Knowledge is cumulative and new things are discovered and old mistakes are rectified constantly. I try to always acknowledge the holes or faults in the information and any fact based debate on the topic.

What faults? most of this is an argument from definition of what makes a human human.

Lets take the control of fire as an example as it was once thought to be the defining characteristic of our kind. In 2009 we observed a near human understanding of fire in wild Chimpanzees in Senegal.

Additionally recent discoveries may have pushed back the use of fire in cooking back before homo erectus. This either means that we've got the characteristics wrong or it's more complex than we assumed.

Another key idea which used to be tool use but we've observed other animals using tools, again those pesky chimps. There have been stone tools discovered which may be connected to Australopithecus. Which given your ridged idea shouldn't be the case if tool use is a defining factor.

See my friend it's never as absolute as we think. Arguments by definition are always falter when new information is discovered as they assume we know all. Notice I've been saying "may have" this was done purposely as well because again we don't know as much as we think.