Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?

An interesting change is taking place in creationist circles in respect of the status of the taxon Homo erectus and its relationship to Homo sapiens sapiens. This development is paralleled by a similar change of direction in evolutionary thinking, and in both cases it seems likely that the impetus is being largely propelled by the discovery of the erectus specimen KNM - WT 15000 in Africa in 1984. This attitudinal shift has connotations for the whole topic of alleged evolution of human beings. In this brief paper it is proposed to track these amended attitudes and the implications for the creation-evolution controversy. Introduction

With the discovery of Java and Peking Homo erectus fossils (the former was previously called Pithecanthropus erectus, and Peking Man was originally named Sinanthropus pekinensis), in 1891-1893 and 1927-1937 respectively, evolutionary theory received a considerable and much-needed boost. Until Dubois' Java discoveries, the only alleged link between man and the apes had been a few Neanderthal specimens. The Piltdown hoax of 1912- 1914 was not uncovered until 1953, by which time it had played a considerable part in the early skepticism by most authorities toward the Taung-child australopithecine discovery in South Africa in 1924.

With the appearance of the Javan and Peking fossils it seemed that evolutionary theory had been vindicated to a sizeable degree, and Pithecanthropus (ape-man) became a common term in public as well as in palaeoanthropological circles.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

"Until 1964, Australopithecus remains had been found in Africa, but remains of the oldest representative of the genus Homo had been recognized only in Asia. In that year, however, Louis Leakey, Phillip Tobias, and John Napier announced the new species Homo habilis, or "handy man". They had to redefine the genus to accommodate this oldest form.

The OH 7 mandible is shown at the top right. In the 1960s, many researchers argued that Homo habilis was not a valid species, and that the fossils attributed to H. habilis were really members of other species. But with the discovery of KNM ER 1470, acceptance of Homo habilis became universal. In hindsight, this seems strange since ER 1470 is now considered to belong to a species distinct from H. habilis. There is much debate as to the number of species that existed in Homo 2 million years ago, and KNM ER 1470 is now assigned to the species Homo rudolfensis. The name Homo habilis is reserved primarily for the Olduvai material and several other specimens. The OH 62 partial skeleton of a female H. habilis provides another interesting twist in the debate about early members of the genus Homo."

And scientists just keep changing the rules. Were they human or were they not? But I'm willing to keep an open mind. Very interesting article.

Quoting: "And scientists just keep changing the rules. Were they human or were they not? But I'm willing to keep an open mind..."

Ah, the fundamentalists mind. Everything has to be either all black or all white, nothing grey.

1. Maybe they were transitional? That is, maybe they have some characteristics of apes at that time and some characteristics of Homo sapiens. That would make them true transitionals--which creationists deny exist.

2. Maybe they were a sub-species, a branch on the tree that did not continue, and this little branch died out, while other branches continued. Evolution is not a straight-line process, it has many zig-zags.

So the question, "were they human or not?" does not have to have a simple yes-no answer. Classification is a matter of drawing a line, for the purpose of descriptions.

As you are known on crevo threads, you should review the excellent postings of Ichneumon, Patrick Henry, Coyoteman, and others, who have shown the science underlying our present understanding of human evolution.

Quote: "I have read a lot of their posts. That's why I found this article so interesting."

And so, why do you post an article from 12 years ago? Do you imagine that science has been standing still? It is only ancient texts that stand still, mired in a time when virtually nothing was known about human reproduction, becoming a superstition of 'morality'.

The infamous "Wedge Strategy"
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html

"
* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its infuence in the fine arts.

* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. "

I mean, talk about an AGENDA!

blam wrote:

All humans are just one species. All the humans that came before are still here in all of us (bits and pieces) around the world. Just look around.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting summation in the link of Wolpoff's theories. Do you agree with his five races theory?

"--- Wolpoff and his colleagues of the University of Michigan, because they believe the five main human races - Negroid, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australian aborigines and southern African bushmen -began their evolutionary divergence well before becoming anatomically modern Homo sapiens, totally reject the 'out of Africa' hypothesis, whereby all modern people owe their ancestry to Africa only -the Noah's Ark theory.

Wolpoff is supported by Alan Thorne of the Australian National University.
According to Shipman, Wolpoff and others are now - '? proposing nothing less than the complete abolition of Homo erectus on the grounds that the species is insufficiently distinct from Homo sapiens.
All fossil specimens of Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens (including Neanderthals), ? should be reclassified into a single species, Homo sapiens, that is, subdivided only into races.' (Emphasis added throughout.)

Under the Wolpoff/Thorne scheme the new definition of Homo sapiens would include all human ancestors with brain sizes from 850 - 2000+cc. Of course this would totally exclude the australopithecines and the phantom 'habilis' - a position which creationists would thoroughly endorse.
Wolpoff and Thorne argue (correctly) that H. habilis is too morphologically distinct from both erectus and sapiens and therefore should be excluded from the genus Homo.
John Reader has also outlined many of the problems facing 'habilis', and concludes - '? more than twenty years of accumulating evidence and discussion have left Homo habilis more insecure than it ever was.
Creationists again would agree because it seems obvious that 'habilis' is only an australopithecine ape.
Wolpoff and Thorne cannot find any consistent anatomical markers which separate erectus from sapiens. They point to the mix of sapiens and erectus features in the two recently discovered Chinese fossil skulls which virtually proves that erectus and sapiens are members of the same species and the taxon Homo erectus should be laid to rest.

Other authorities such as Rightmire disagree, claiming that the minor distinctions which Wolpoff et al. consider as merely racial variations, are sufficient to keep separate species classifications.
On these same pages, Shipman points out the difficulties in identifying meaningful points for measuring skull vault thickness for example. The variation, individual to individual, is considerable and this is exactly one of the points which I am attempting to make- 'evolution' has nothing to do with it. The differences between the various forms of archaic Homo sapiens relates, at least in part, to a combination of climatic, dietary, maturational and longevity-driven factors.
In a short article in 1990, Maslen cites Dr Thorne as saying - '? the fossil record reveals that the features possessed by the early hominids who lived in Europe, Asia and Africa, have exactly the same sort of range as those we see in modern people. ---"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.