Homo ergaster is one of the more problematic of somewhat accepted species designations currently tossed around in anthropological literature. Each individual researcher that sees ergaster as a valid taxon sees different specimens as belonging or not belonging to the taxon. MANY RESEARCHERS DENY ANY VALIDITY TO THE SPECIES AT ALL. ON THE WHOLE THOUGH, MOST RESEARCHERS SEE TOO LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ERGASTER AND ERECTUS TO FORM THE BASIS OF A SPECIES OF THE FORMER, SEPARATED FROM THE LATTER. As a general rule of thumb, one can consider most attributed ergaster specimens to be early erectus geographically confined to Africa (however, this is not a hard and fast rule). The taxon ergaster was first described in 1975 by C. Groves and V. Mazak. The specimen attributed as the type specimen was ER 992, an isolated mandible. Since then, other specimens have been attributed by various authors to ergaster, with most researchers placing the same fossils in erectus. Those who see it as a valid taxon tend to see it as more closely resembling modern H. sapiens than does H. erectus. They tend to see ergaster as a direct ancestor of modern humans with erectus being an evolutionary dead-end. Many Out of Africa supporters use this taxon as evidence that Asian and European specimens did not contribute genetically to the modern human genome, but this claim is very weak.
There should be millions of transitory versions between man and ape but nada nothing. Nice graph though, very convincing.
What kind of Conservative swallows something like evolution whole??
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
What kind of Conservative swallows something like evolution whole??
One who has actually studied it.