If you look at my original post of this specimen you will note its classification includes three names:
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo erectus ergaster
This is because there is disagreement over the exact classification of the specimen.
Rightmire suggests that this specimen should be classified as an early Homo erectus. Others disagree and place it as a separate species.
Neither of these classifications change that it has a position ancestral or closely ancestral to the bulk of Homo erectus. The disagreement is on exactly where to place it.
You have read Rightmire's opinion. Here is another:
By 1.9 million years ago, another lineage of the genus Homo emerged in Africa. This species was Homo ergaster. Traditionally, scientists have referred to this species as Homo erectus and linked this species name with a proliferation of populations across Africa, Europe, and Asia. Yet, since the first discoveries of Homo erectus, it had been noted that there were differences between the early populations of "Homo erectus" in Africa, and the later populations of Europe, Africa and Asia. Many researchers now separate the two into distinct species Homo ergaster for early African "Homo erectus", and Homo erectus for later populations mainly in Asia. Since modern humans share the same differences as H. ergaster with the Asian H. erectus, scientist consider H. ergaster as the probable ancestor of later Homo populations. Source
Some consider H. ergaster as a strictly African erectus species, while the majority of H. erectus is seen as primarily Asian; in this view modern humans are descended from H. ergaster in Africa.
None of this disqualifies as a transitional. In fact, the more disagreement over where a specimen should be classified the more likely it is a transitional.
No more tutorials tonight; I've other things to do.
It most certainly does as Ergaster is nothign but a fantasy classification dreampt up by people desperate to link man to apes- Your ergaster is nothign more than a homo erectus with only minor changes too small to warrent hteir own classification of the species on their own. You well know this, but you post the pictures as though it’s still a valid example of a transition when it clearly isn’t
“In fact, evolutionist Ian Tattersall wrote under the title of “The Many Faces of Homo habilis” in the journal Evolutionary Anthropology: “...[I]t is increasingly clear that Homo habilis has become a wastebasket taxon, little more than a convenient recipient for a motley assortment of hominid fossils from the latest Pliocene and earliest Pleistocene” (1[1]:34-36, emp. added). In speaking of H. habilis, geologist Trevor Major summarized the situation as follows:
In fact, the whole issue of its place among Homo is highly contentious, and the species has become a dumping ground for strange and out-of-place fossils. Some paleontologists have tried to impose some order by reassigning australopithecine-like specimens to Homo rudolfensis, and the most modern-looking specimens to “early African erectus” or Homo ergaster (to which some would assign the Turkana boy). Apart from a small difference in brain size between australopithecines (less than 550 ml) and habilines (around 500-650 ml), there are no other compelling reasons to divide them between two genera (1996, 16:76, emp. added, parenthetical items in orig.).
Homo erectus/Homo ergaster
And what about Homo erectus? Until March 2002, most evolutionary anthropologists and paleontologists believed that two different creatures belonged in the H. erectus niche: Homo ergaster and Homo erectus. H. ergaster was believed to have emerged in Africa and then spread to Europe. H. erectus was believed to have existed mainly in Asia. But an article in the March 21, 2002 issue of Nature has challenged the traditional thinking about these two species. Writing under the title, “Remains of Homo erectus from Bouri, Middle Awash, Ethiopia,” Berhane Asfaw (of the Rift Valley Research Service in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) and his coauthors discussed their discovery of a partial skull (referred to as a calvaria), which they labeled as H. erectus. The skull, discovered on December 27, 1997 in the Afar Rift of Ethiopia known as the Middle Awash, in a sedimentary section of the Bouri formation known as the Dakanihylo (“Daka”), has been dated at approximately 1 million years old (Asfaw, et al., 2002). The significance of what is now being called the Daka skull in the evolutionary debate is this:
The skull is almost identical to Homo erectus fossils found in Asia.... It is so similar, the team believes that it cannot possibly be that of another species. The Daka specimen suggests that Homo erectus was not limited to Asia, separated from its contemporary, Homo ergaster. Homo erectus instead was a robust, far-flung species that lived in Asia, Africa, and Europe (McKee, 2002).
Tim White, paleoanthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley and one of the coauthors of the Nature paper, put it this way:
This fossil is a crucial piece of evidence showing that the splitting of Homo erectus into two species is not justified.... What we are saying in this paper is that the anthropological splitting common today is giving the wrong impression about the biology of these early human ancestors. The different names indicate an apparent diversity that is not real. Homo erectus is a biologically successful organism, not a whole series of different human ancestors, all but one of which went extinct” (as quoted in “Ethiopian Fossil Skull...,” 2002, emp. added).
Asfaw, et al., wrote:
To recognize the basal fossils representing this apparently evolving lineage with the separate species name “H. ergaster” is therefore doubtfully necessary or useful. At most, the basal members of the H. erectus lineage should be recognized taxonomically as a chrono-subspecies (H. erectus ergaster) [2002, 416:318-319, parenthetical item in orig.].
The graduate student who actually found the skull (and who is a coauthor of the Nature paper), Henry Gilbert, probably put it best when he said: “One of the biggest impacts this calvaria will have on the field is in making Homo erectus look more like a single species again” (as quoted in “Ethiopian Fossil Skull,” 2002).
Now that evolutionists have wiped out one-half of the Homo erectus niche by eliminating Homo ergaster, what shall we say about the single remaining member of the H. erectus category? Examine a copy of the November 1985 issue of National Geographic and see if you can detect any differences between the drawings of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens (Weaver, 168:576-577). The fact is, there are no recognizable differences. Almost forty years ago, Ernst Mayr, the famed evolutionary taxonomist of Harvard, remarked: “The Homo erectus stage is characterized by a body skeleton which, so far as we know, does not differ from that of modern man in any essential point” (1965, p. 632). His statement is as true today as when he first made it. Furthermore, the skull of H. erectus shared many features with the Neanderthals, yet with flatter brow ridges and a less prominent mid-facial region. Some of the H. erectus skeletons were short and stocky (like the Neanderthals), but one specimen—a nine- to eleven-year-old boy from West Turkana, Kenya—was quite tall and slender (Andrews and Stringer, 1993, p. 242). Cranial volume varied from 850 to over 1100 milliliters (ml) for H. erectus, and 1250 to over 1740 ml for Neanderthals. The average for modern humans is 1350 ml, but we exhibit a broad range of 700 to 2200 ml (Lubenow, 1992, p. 138).”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/print/127
Jeremy Rifkin summed it up accurately.
What the “record” shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform to Darwin’s notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution (1983, p. 125).
No more correcting your ‘tutorials’ tonight- I have other htigns to do
Juyst onem ore hting before I leave though- Just recently, there was thought to have been a ‘neanderthal woman’ who was caught and raped and bore sons who had thick brows and muscular heavy boned bodies- and her skull was kept by this family- it indeeed looked very odd, and quite possibly like a ‘missing link’, but when examined- lo and behold- it was FULLY HUMAN, and she suffered from a form of encaphalo-something which ... get this ... deformed her skull ... gasp ... eeek ... and all those good exclamations.
There are two classes- Apes and Humans- and ge5t this- soemk within those two classes have unuisual skulls that ‘appear like’ another species- but we all know they truly aren’t- Well, at least those who understand the biological impossibilities of Macroevolution understand htis.
And just for hte record- I had a pituitary tumor that caused a condition known as Acromegally & guess what? Yup- enlarged brow, wide nose (although thankfully mine was caught before it got real noticeable)
And just another note on the woman who was thought to be neanderthal- Her skull was much smaller than ours & fell outside of the ‘normal range’, yet she was still FULLY HUMAN (If you care to look it up I beleive her son’s name was flint or clint- something like that- Russian I beleive)
They also did research into ‘small people’ recently and traced back a line of people still living today, with abnormally small skulls and body structures (No I’m not talking about hte flourensis find, or whatever they were called)- and htese folks are... get ready for it... fully human.
Seems these facts throw great doubt upon the classification techniques used to ‘classify’ Ergaster & other supposed ‘pre humans’ eh?
Nah- can’t be- We all know that there were nothign but perfect specimens millions of years ago as man was evolving from a common ancestor (Despite htere having to have been an absolute necessity for trillions of mutaitons in order to even hint at moving the species beyond hteir own kind- were it even biologically possible-) So yeah- any features such as large browline must have been from a perfect specimen and not some diseased person or ape- because all people and apes apparently shared perfect anatomical features back then eh?:
I’ll see your two dollar raise and reraise you 10