Posted on 01/29/2006 8:19:28 AM PST by mlc9852
Abstract
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
"taxon Homo erectus should be laid to rest"
I believe some scientists already have laid it to rest.
Interesting summation in the link of Wolpoff's theories. Do you agree with his five races theory?
"Do you agree with his five races theory?"
It seems apparent there are different races. What implications that has for evolution, I'm not sure. What do you think?
Yes. Wolpoff has the most believeable ideas, multiregionalism.
Race And Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
There are two widely held scientific theories concerning the origin of the human species. One posits a single cradle, generally thought to be in Africa, in which Homo sapiens originated. This dominant theory is assisted by its charismatic spokesmodel Eve, a fictitious personification of a DNA strain that some scientists argue indicates a unique source for the Earth's human population.
The other, decidedly less popular theory is known as multiregionalism. Multiregionalists argue that populations may have originated in Africa, but these populations migrated to distant regions where the human species developed and took on different characteristics, known to scientists as biological diversity but more conventionally referred to as different races.
This divide is obviously controversial, and it is not always the steady eye of science that influences which model is deemed correct (or at least politically correct).
After all, one model promises a scientific verification of our common humanity, the other, interpreted too loosely, could result in a scientific rationale that hardens concepts of racial difference.
Anthropological researchers (and husband and wife) Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari have written Race and Human Evolution as an accessible introduction to the debates over the origins of the human species that makes a careful and detailed case for multiregionalism.
Much of the authors' effort is directed at separating their scientifically sound position from the racist legacy of earlier theories of polygenism, which argued that races were genetically isolated.
They also mount compelling arguments that the "single source of humanity" camp has succeeded thanks to good marketing rather than hard or conclusive data.
Their book proves not only an interesting introduction to anthropological debates, it also reflects the way a scientific thesis is formulated, developed, and defended in the media-savvy late 20th century.
From Publishers Weekly
This uneven volume from University of Michigan anthropologists Wolpoff and Caspari defends Wolpoff's theory that human evolution resulted from long-term "multiregional evolution" rather than via a relatively recent descent from a single "Eve" in Africa.
The authors largely base their case on the fossil record, which contains evidence that, they contend, doesn't jibe with the Eve theory, which was derived primarily through DNA analysis by molecular biologists.
Their argument is well-reasoned but some of the basic concepts, including that of multiregional evolution, could use a clearer explication. Technical material abounds, much of it likely to prove difficult for the general reader.
And, while Wolpoff receives top authorial billing, the text is presented mostly in the first-person singular from Caspari's perspective, an intrusive stylistic device. There's much to ponder here, though, and the middle chapters, which place paleoanthropology in a historical and political context, are sound and informative. Illustrations.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.
I support his theory, do you?
"--- 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. ---"
Homo erectus...hehe, hehe, hehehe, hehehe...
Thanks for the comments & link..
Feeling erectile Luis?
You're still here?
I just checked out your FR homepage, two things...
My name is there, why?
That whole no paragraphs, run-on sentence thing you have going on...we need to keep you away from guns and clock towers.
Are you hitting on me?
The answer is still no.
:-)
You wish.
You're still here?
Yep, newly reinstated, after a looong time out.
I just checked out your FR homepage, two things... My name is there, why?
Read much? - It's an old ping list.
FFR ping list: A CA Guy; Amelia; ArneFufkin; blackbart.223; Bush2000; Chad Fairbanks; ClancyJ; COB1; Cultural Jihad; CWOJackson; DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet; doug from upland; freebilly; Howlin; Humidston; justshe; Kevin Curry; ladyinred; Lowelljr; Lucius Cornelius Sulla; Luis Gonzalez; MadIvan; Miss Marple; Mo1; Ms. AntiFeminazi; OneidaM; nopardons; RedBloodedAmerican; rintense; Roscoe; Russell Scott; sinkspur; Southflanknorthpawsis; terilyn; Texasforever; wimpycat; chancellor palpatine; --
That whole no paragraphs, run-on sentence thing you have going on...we need to keep you away from guns and clock towers.
I did that long ago, Looie, just to irritate guys like you.
-- It works well.
Wow. A 14 month time out? You should have gotten a Vermont judge.
That's so, just as man progresses, so to he can regress.
There must be room for Ted Kennedy in there.
Thanks for posting. If there is an anthropology ping list, I'd like to be on it.
I don't know if there is an anthropology list, but I'd like to be on it, also.
Yes there is we call it the GGG list which is short for 'Gods, Graves, Glyphs'.
Freeper 'SunkenCiv' does an excellent job of managing the list too.
At last count, we had 521 'subscribers.'
Thanks! SunkenCiv, please add me to the 'GGG' list.
Was it 14 months? -- Time does fly when you're banned.
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.