lol- both peking and java man are just that- read carefully- if you’re statign that 3733 is akin to htem- then you’re statign they are fully man- not transitionals-
Sorry- but 3733 is nothign but a man- but some scientists tried to blurr hte line by creating ‘new classifications’ when the rest of hte science world knew the new classificaitons were bogus
“Turkana). The fossils in this new taxon include KNM-ER 1470,1472,1481,1590,1802, and 3732. Wood complicates matters further by proposing another new taxon, Homo ergaster, made up of fossils KNM-ER 3733, 3883, and KNM-WT 15000, which virtually every other investigator classifies as full-fledged Homo erectus. Wood calls these three fossils African precursors of Homo’ erectus.
In contrast to popular belief, the origin of the fully human taxon called Homo erectus is not known. Among evolutionists, anything is possible. Homo erectus might come from the entire Homo habilis hypodigm (Johanson and White), from the larger fossils of that hypodigm (Leakey and Walker), or from unknown fossils which may or may not be of that hypodigm (Wood and others). Richard Leakey states that the human evolution story at 2.0 Ma is unclear and he hopes that new fossils will cast light on the subject.46 G. Philip Rightmire reveals the naked truth: ‘Just how Homo erectus first evolved is one of the major issues in paleoanthropology. Here the fossils and the stratigraphic record are limited, and many details may never be resolved.’47 Homo erectus is in fact a false category. Evolutionists have taken true human ancestors and tried to make them evolutionary ancestors. The somewhat different skull morphology of Homo erectus may be the result of the environment of the post-Flood Ice Age.48Since Homo erectus did not evolve but was a true member of the human family created by God in His image, it is not surprising that evolutionists have great difficulty in finding an evolutionary ancestor for him.
LACK OF EVOLUTION WITHIN HOMOERECTUS It is common for evolutionists to claim documentation for evolutionary change within the Homo erectus taxon based primarily on the fossils from Java. Many natural history and anthropology museums have such displays, including the San Diego Museum of Man. In fact, if evolution were true, change within this taxon is exactly what we would expect, and it is what evolutionists say should happen. However, that claim involving the Javanese fossils is invalid for two reasons. First, the stratigraphy of the Javanese fossil beds was still unclear long after those fossils were discovered. Second, very few of the fossils from Java CEN Tech. J., vol. 10, no. 1,1996 were seenin situby the investigators who ‘discovered’ them, such as Dubois and von Koenigswald.
The bulk of the Javanese fossils were uncovered by hired nationals who knew nothing about geology or stratigraphy, with Dubois or von Koenigswald arriving on the scene well after the fact. All paleoanthropologists know that the Javanese fossil dates are uncertain.
Those displays showing evolution within the Javanese Homo erectus fossils are raw propaganda designed to influence the unknowing public toward evolution. There is no significant change throughout the history of Homo erectus that would in any wise document evolution. That is true not only of the Javanese fossils but of the entire taxon. The leading investigator in this area, G. Philip Rightmire, has evaluated specific characteristics ofHomo erectus over its alleged million year history, comparing early erectus with late erectus. He concludes that there is no characteristic that changes in a significant evolutionary way.
‘Following the emergence of Homo erectus, systematic change is not easily documented.’49Commenting on the many regions of the world inhabited by Homo erectus, he adds: ‘Populations inhabiting these far-flung regions of the Old World are anatomically similar, and the morphology of the species seems to have changed little over more than a million years.”
Nice try convoluting hte facts Coyote
AN EARLY UPPER PLEISTOCENE AND AFRICAN ORIGIN FOR THE NEANDERTHALS
Patrick Fleming, February 1992
Summary
This contribution to the ongoing Neanderthal debate (Graves, 1991) postulates that the species Homo sapiens originated in Africa in the early Upper Pleistocene. This population then split into two groups. One group migrated to the Near East and Europe where it developed into Neanderthal. The other group stayed in Africa and developed into anatomically modern Homo sapiens. This latter group then migrated from Africa sometime later. The article will indicate that:
i) Homo erectus was a world-wide taxon that died out in all locations except Africa where it developed into archaic Homo sapiens (AHS);
ii) All archaic Homo sapiens populations (Africa, Europe, Asia) belong to the one taxon that originated in Africa;
iii) Anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMH) belonged to the same species as AHS and was an adaptation to the warm conditions of Africa;
iv) Neanderthal belonged to the same species as archaic Homo sapiens and was an adaptation to the icy conditions of Europe and Northern latitudes.
THE STATUS OF HOMO ERECTUS
Rightmire (1990) discusses the following questions in relation to Homo erectus:
i) whether Homo erectus is best defined as an arbitrary grade in the Homo lineage or a discrete entity;
ii) the necessity, or even utility, of recognizing characters which are unique (autapomorphic) to Homo erectus if this species is to be diagnosed adequately relative to other taxa;
iii) Evolutionary tempos and whether gradual change can be documented within Homo erectus over a long span of Pleistocene time.
He presents a case for viewing Homo erectus as a real taxon. His description of this species lists many characters which are primitive and which are not shared with modern humans. It is also possible to identify some traits which are clearly derived for Homo erectus in comparison to earlier Homo or Australopithecus. These include a heavy brow, midline keeling and parietal tori, strong flexion of the occiput and development of a prominent transverse torus, features of the cranial base and expansion of cranial capacity. Such characters serve to diagnose the species in a more precise way, and it can be argued, he states, that Homo erectus is not simply an arbitrarily defined segment of a lineage. This paleospecies had ancestors and probably left descendants, but these groups can be distinguished from one another on the basis of morphological comparisons. Regarding ancestors he states that two taxa may be present, as both large and small-brained morphs are present.
Following the emergence of Homo erectus, he continues, systematic change is not easily documented. There is a trend towards endocranial expansion, which is apparent particularly in the later assemblages at Zhoukoudian and Ngandong. The growth of brain size with time depends on the date assigned to the Ngandong crania. If these crania are included then brain volume increases at a rate of about 180 ml/my. However, there is much doubt about the age of the Ngandong hominids, and assigning them a late Middle Pleistocene date biases the analysis. If a regression line is constructed without reference to Ngandong the slope drops to about 120 ml/my. This result cannot be distinguished from zero, and there is no evidence that the trend is statistically significant. Other characters change slowly or not at all. Towards the close of the Middle Pleistocene, there are signs that some of these traits begin to change more rapidly. It is during this period that populations of Homo erectus must have given way to the first representatives of a new species.
Rightmire states that early in the Middle Pleistocene, Homo erectus can be documented from fossils found in the South, Eastern and Northwestern parts of Africa, in the Far Eastern tropics and in the cooler reaches of Northern China. Populations inhabiting these far-flung regions of the Old World are anatomically similar, and the morphology of the species seems to have changed little over more than a million years. However, differences in behaviour are apparent. In Africa, Middle Pleistocene humans utilized an Acheulian technology, while at Zhoukoudian the chopping tools associated with Homo erectus do not include hand axes. In Java, few stone tools of any sort are found in the deposits yielding ancient hominids. This suggests that Homo erectus groups were adapting differently to local circumstances.
[snip] Source