Table 1: Summary of the results of analyses of characteristics of fossil Homo species [After Table 7 in Wood and Collard, Ref. 3]. 1) body size, 2) body shape, 3) locomotion, 4) jaws and teeth, 5) development and 6) brain size. H = like modern humans, A = australopith-like, I = intermediate ? = data unavailable.
|
Species name |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
H. rudolfensis |
? |
? |
? |
A |
A |
A |
|
H. habilis |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
H. ergaster |
H |
H |
H |
H |
H |
A |
|
H. erectus |
H |
? |
H |
H |
? |
I |
|
H. heidelbergensis |
H |
? |
H |
H |
? |
A |
|
H neanderthalensis |
H |
H |
H |
H |
H |
H |
In order to fend off the usual bogus anti-creationist accusations of quoting out of context, Table 1 (above) has been reproduced from Table 7 in Wood and Collard exactly as it appears in their work. As can be seen, only one major constellation of traits in the specimens in question is in fact characterized as I (intermediate) between australopiths and Homo sapiens. All of the others are either unknown, clear-cut australopith in morphology, or clear-cut Homo sapiens in morphology. Now, had the hominins actually been a series of transitional forms gradually progressing from australopith to modern Homo sapiens (as commonly portrayed in textbooks), many if not most of the entries in Table 1 would instead be I (intermediate).
****(3)Wood and Collard, The human genus, Science 284, Ref. 1, p. 66
Also see The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470.
Note: I do NOT work for AIG. I am simply pointing out an article that disagrees with supposed 'human evolution.'
Also note that anthropology has been plagued by fraud many times in the past. Most recently by a flamboyant Professor from Germany... Fraud
Correct. Send $$ to:
John Woodmorappe