How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?

"Australopithocines evolved into Homo erectus around 1.5 million years ago and Homo erectus, in turn, evolved into Homo sapiens around 400,000 years ago." This is presented to school children as no less certain than Washington's crossing of the Delaware. The statement makes dual claims: (1) there are fundamental anatomical differences between these three categories, and (2) each occurs in the right time frame. Let us examine these claims.

The anatomical differences between these three groups must be very substantial for the statement to have any meaning. Any anthropologist should be able to spot a Homo erectus on a crowded subway train, even clean-shaven and in a business suit, as different from modern humans. Not so. In fact, leading anthropologists Milford H. Wolpoff (University of Michigan), William S. Laughlin (U. of Connecticut), Gabriel Ward Lasker (Wayne State U.), Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (Cornell), Jerome Cybulski (National Museum of Man, Ottawa), and Donald Johanson (Institute of Human Origins) find the differences between these fossil categories to be so small that they have wondered in print if H. sapiens and H. erectus are one and the same. Fossils classified as H. erectus all share a set of "primitive" traits including a sloping forehead and large brow ridges, yet these all fall comfortably within the range of what are called normal humans today. For example, the very same traits are found in some modern people groups, including Eskimos! Eskimos might not like being referred to as "primitive" humans, yet evolutionists must do so if they are to be consistent. There are a lot of problems with the continued use of this taxon, yet it is essential to the evolution story.

The second truth claim embedded within the statement given to school kids has to do with these fossils occurring in the right time frame. For example, fossils with a H. erectus anatomy should be found exclusively in rocks that are older than those with its youthful descendents, "anatomically-modern" humans. This is decidedly not the case. Putting aside the validity of age-dates for a moment, the range for H. erectus is usually given at between about 1.5 million years and 400,000 years. Studiously avoided in most museum depictions is the fact that fossils with a H. erectus anatomy that are younger than 400,000 years number well over 100, including some as young as 6000 years. Even more amazing is this: fossil humans that are easily interpreted as "anatomically modern" (i.e., non-H. erectus) have been found in rocks that are much older than 1.5 million years. From a dozen different sites have come cranial fragments, including one good skull, teeth, several arm and leg bones, a fossil trackway, and stone structure that each screams out "modern human." The trackways at Laetoli, Tanzania, dated at 3.6 million years, and tibia (leg bone) and humerus (arm bone) from Kanapoi, Kenya, dated at 3.5 million, are especially significant for these pre-date even "Lucy," the celebrated upright-walking ape. These embarrassments have been revised, reinterpreted, and re-dated, but will not go away.

Keep these things in mind the next time you hear of a "missing link" being reported, for example, between H. erectus and modern man (as has been in the recent popular press). God made His creatures to reproduce "after their own kind," and it appears from the fossils that they have done just that.

The following article from AIG has a great discusion of erectus, and why it's most likely a variation of modern humans.

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

I see Coyoteman once again posted the often debunked chart of skulls. And Gaffer gave it all the respect it was due. HA!

Coyoteman if you are going to post the skull chart, you really ought to include the following disclaimers, because it's really dishonest not to.

Skull F (lucy-1470)has since been reconstructed and is clearly an ape with a sloping face instead of a flat one. This article talks about that too.
And that the Neanderthal skulls aren't to scale, they were larger than modern humans and were our contemporaries.
Not to mention the complete nonsense of a chart that starts with a Modern chimp then goes to ape fossils, then human fossils and back to modern humans.
- "...Pellegrino conceded that the differences between H. erectus and modern man are merely superficial"... and "discusses the probability that (they) are one and the same species."
- "There are literally thousands of hominid fossils in existence and of these, over 300 are classified as either Neanderthal or erectus". Coyoteman was inferring that there are tens of thousands of erectus skulls, but in fact Neanderthal and erectus tegether number only over 300.
- "To make matters even more interesting, there are human skulls in Australia, dated as modern, which exhibit clear and unambiguous erectus features."
- The growing creationist (and evolutionist) view is gathering strength - that H. erectus and all H. sapiens forms should be considered not as separate species but as a single human species encompassing a range of genetic and phenotypic diversity.
- Custance argues for a dietary not an evolutionary cause for the skeletal features. And cites modern examples.
- Coyoteman's evolution tree is examined over time and blown away.
Below is an excerpt about the Custance findings
"There are a number of possible, even probable, non-evolutionary explanations for this diversity in the human species, and these are succinctly outlined in the works of Lubenow and Beasley.49,50"
"Also, Custance has argued convincingly that the so-called 'primitive' erectus and Neanderthal features are almost entirely due to the functioning of the jaw mechanism which would affect the size and shape of brow ridges, the forehead and the zygomatic arch.51 On page 183 Custance finds that the 'primitive' facial and skull features have nothing to do with evolution, but are due to the eating of uncooked or partially-cooked foods, especially in childhood, thus strengthening the jaw mechanism, causing it to be- come more massive in structure, and this process deforms the skull by depressing the forehead, making the brow ridges more prominent, and forces outwards the zygomatic arch, thus accentuating the cheek bones. If these people also chewed hides and skins of animals for softening, this would also have had a similar effect. This effect is increased by the tugging of flesh from the bones, and might be particularly pronounced when the diet, especially of juveniles, is lacking in bone-hardening substances such as calcium. By mid-adolescence these features then would become 'set in concrete' as adult characters."
"Custance cites known examples, and points out that such authorities as Hooten, Howells, Hrdlicka and others were well aware of this.52 Thus, such a process, occurring in individuals, could well account for many erectus and Neanderthal features. Custance's works should be compulsory reading for all anthropologists, whether creationist or evolutionist."

"Show one rude post by Coyoteman or take back your assertion."

Let Me! Let Me! Let Me! WHAT FUN!!!

Let's examine every post Coyoteman has made in this thread to see if it's rude or not.

Post #7, RUDE, Implies ICR is not trustworthy. Slanders their goals.
Post #8, RUDE Uses the total number of fossils to try to imply that they are all supportive of evolution when in fact only a very small percentage are. Then using this overstated info, rudely and haughtily dimisses Echo with "So much for your 'couple of bones' contention".
Post #56, RUDE accuses Echo of "blowing smoke" and being a "troll"
Post #69, RUDE implies Echo is stupid for not trusting the so-called experts like Coyoteman. "You might not be able to, but we can"
Post #75 RUDE insults Echo's education while completely ignoring Echo's point about imaginary species.
Post #88 NO RUDENESS!
Post #106 No Rudeness, but he does post a chart that has known problems that have been pointed out to him in the past without acknowledgint those problems.
Post 112 No Rudeness!
Post 117 RUDE Accuses Creationists of frequently misrepresenting science. Also accuses Creationists of attacking science itself instead of certain evolutionist methods and/or conclusions, thereby implying Creationists are anti-science when they are not.
Post 127 RUDE Posts California Indian creation story implying all cultures, religions and creation stories are equal. This is Coyoteman's trademark rude posts.
Post 129 RUDE Posts another Indiean Creation story implying all cultures, religions and creation stories are equal.
Post 131 No Rudeness
Post 135, RUDE last line insults Elders.
Post 143, No Rudeness, jokingly claims to be always nice.
Post 159, No Rudeness, even offers an apology for allegedly calling DaveLoneRanger an A**hole.
Post 167, RUDE says F.J. Mitchell doesn't know anything about his posting history and style.
Post 172, NO RUDENESS Does admit to biting sarcasm and appears to successfully defend against DaveLoneRanger's allegation. Again offers apology.
Post 175, No Rudeness
Post 179, No Rudeness, but is still appears to be overstating the Number of fossils that are actually relevant to evolution.

Summary

Of Coyote's 19 posts, 10 were deemed rude, 9 were not.
However there were two apologies to an as yet unsubstantiated allegation of vulgar name calling, which of itself is a noteworthy positive.

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.