How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?

Institute for Creation Research ^ | William Hoesch, M.S.

[fabian]

science from the Merriam Webster dictionary; "the state of knowing"...also, "a department of systematic knowledge as an object of study". There is a definition that says knowledge and study of the physical world and its phenomena but that's only one of the several definitions.
There is a pretty famous case of a person whose weight was closely monitored right before death and compared to the weight just as he passed on. It showed a minute difference just as he died and there was no known explaination for the difference. Maybe it was his soul leaving his body?

[stands2reason]

You are enamored of matter.

[Stark_GOP]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gordon.html

"The number of pre-Homo sapiens fossils consisting of moderately complete skulls or skeletons is probably on the order of two or three dozen."

Of all the places to find this quote! I found it on the evolutionist's favorite reference site.

[tomzz]

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!...

That's basically ignorant. DNA tests show the neanderthal to have been genetically about halfway between us and chimps and the neanderthal was the most advanced hominid. Any modern human could interbreed with eskimos. No modern human could interbreed with a homo erectus any more than we could with horses.

[Sopater]

That's basically ignorant. DNA tests show the neanderthal to have been genetically about halfway between us and chimps and the neanderthal was the most advanced hominid.

Case closed?

Do you happen to know just what the percentage of mtDNA from modern humans was compared to Neanderthal mtDNA in order to base this claim?

Any modern human could interbreed with eskimos. No modern human could interbreed with a homo erectus any more than we could with horses.

If it's not possible, why would science continully be asking the question whether or not it happened (i.e. Homo floresiensis)?

Work with pubic lice could provide an even better insight into the possible interactions of early humans. “I think there are a lot more stories to tell from lice - and parasites in general,” says Reed. “Pthirus pubis could lead us to the holy grail of anthropology: whether or not Homo sapiens and Homo erectus interbred.” (emphasis added)

Lice may reveal early human interaction - NewScientist.com news service
12:27 05 October 2004