Is Erectus an anatomically modern human?

[Biologist]

When discussing Human Evolution the topic of “race” will inevitably be brought up. The problem with the term “race” is the implication that it implies there are more than one “variety” of living humans. All living Humans belong to the same “race”, the human race. Or rather, we are all the same species(H. sapiens), with each and every independent population producing offspring as equally variable and equally modern as any other humans. As the six families(all biological) in the photos demonstrate, distinct physical traits don't matter. Each family produces only one type of offspring: Human.

It has been called into question, that H. erectus. may in fact be a lost “race” or variety of man. However, that idea is wrong. Very simply put, when Erectus populations produce offspring they produce only anatomically correct Erectus morphology. Even if we carefully selected the most Sapien like individuals and breed them. We would always end up with Erectus morphology.

How is it possible for Sapians to be descended from Erectus but not be Erectus? The answer is simple: Time. Time alters the composition of genetics in the favor of better genetics. Time also creates new genetics, in the form of mutants. Mutants are rare, some 1 in 1000, some 1 in 1M. Most of the time mutations go extinct. But some reach what we call fixation, everyone in the population has these traits. Sapiens have many traits that are fixated, that Erectus never had. Erectus had many fixated traits that are completely absent in modern man. Time created Humans by the gradual erosion of Erectus. Even if we had a time machine and even if ErectusSapian hybrids are fertile, we can't bring about a Species that once was with what is. Nor could we create what is Human with what was Human, without mutants.

 

[Widlast]

Homo erectus is not the same species as Homo sapiens. Most of the anatomy of the two is the same, but the skulls have striking differences.

 

[Biologist]

Homo erectus is not the same species as Homo sapiens. Most of the anatomy of the two is the same, but the skulls have striking differences.

Good summary of the OP.

 

[JellyQuest]

Homo erectus is not the same species as Homo sapiens. Most of the anatomy of the two is the same, but the skulls have striking differences.

i guess that is why some of those skulls were obtained by shooting the aboriginal australian who was wearing it at the time -the theory of evolution is the most extreme form or racism there is ,considering at the time any one not upright ,white and in a suit was "less evolved and so less then human "-ie an animal to be shot -its an ugly ugly godless satanic theory .

 

[Radrook]

Genesis doesn't jive with the evolution idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is Erectus an anatomically modern human?

Yes and no.

God told His people that He would put "wonderful plagues" on them if they disobeyed.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

I submit these plagues were some kind of bone-altering diseases that affected how the person looked; and if dug up today, would be mistaken for Neanderthals & Cro-Magnons.

King David died of such a disease (Psalm 38).

 

[Biologist]

Edited

 

[Subduction Zone]

i guess that is why some of those skulls were obtained by shooting the aboriginal australian who was wearing it at the time -the theory of evolution is the most extreme form or racism there is ,considering at the time any one not upright ,white and in a suit was "less evolved and so less then human "-ie an animal to be shot -its an ugly ugly godless satanic theory .

Actually it is a beautiful theory that works amazingly well. Those that shot Australian Aborignes simply did not understand the theory. Their own racism was the probably reason that they shot them and the theory of evolution was merely a handy excuse. By your logic you cannot separate any of the people that did evil using Christianity as an excuse. For example the Catholic Church used to sell indulgences. That was a time honored Christian activity. Was it right or wrong?

People not understanding an idea and misapplying it is not evidence that that idea is wrong. And you are very lucky that that is the case.

 

[Biologist]

Actually it is a beautiful theory that works amazingly well. Those that shot Australian Aborignes simply did not understand the theory. Their own racism was the probably reason that they shot them and the theory of evolution was merely a handy excuse.

They would have also been very disappointed to find out that Aboriginals are perfectly modern with perfectly average skull sizes. Humans are continuously variable.

The whole concept of race is a post hoc delusion. Depending on who you ask my nose can be described a Roman, Jewish, Nordic, English, Indian, Native American, Egyptian and many more. But the reality is every population on earth has individuals with large noses. The same can be said for any trait. First picture, top right, those girls are TWINS from Nigerian immigrants.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, human "races" are a social construct. As Biology has pointed out there are no real differences between the so called races.

 

[Papias]

Yep, human "races" are a social construct. As Biology has pointed out there are no real differences between the so called races.

It depends on what you call "real". Just to be clear, as you know, I'm on the left. However, I won't deny reality. There are actual differences in genotype that can be used to reliably indicate race. These differences are repeatable - when they indicate someone is of a given race, subsequent tests by others will give the same result.

They are also repeatable based on phenotype. Shown pictures of people, observers can consistently sort them by race, with different observers giving the same results.
Yes, race is real - though the differences are in unimportant things like skin tone, nose shape, hair color, etc, and not in important things like intelligence, ability, etc.

-Papias

 

[Subduction Zone]

It depends on what you call "real". Just to be clear, as you know, I'm on the left. However, I won't deny reality. There are actual differences in genotype that can be used to reliably indicate race. These differences are repeatable - when they indicate someone is of a given race, subsequent tests by others will give the same result.

The problem is that there is a huge range in any "race" of humans. People of African heritage can have straight hair, though the population does have a significantly higher proportion of people with curly hair. The same could be said of just about any other trait. And yes, northern European people will be of significantly lighter skin tone. But those differences are hardly significant.

They are also repeatable based on phenotype. Shown pictures of people, observers can consistently sort them by race, with different observers giving the same results.
Yes, race is real - though the differences are in unimportant things like skin tone, nose shape, hair color, etc, and not in important things like intelligence, ability, etc.

-Papias

I agree.

 

[JackRT]

I dint view the rcc as christian .they worship Mary and follow the pope.

The RCC is one of the earliest Christian churches. They do not worship Mary. The pope is just a matter of church governance. I speak of this as a former Catholic.

 

[Biologist]

It depends on what you call "real".

When I say real, I'm referring to: Allele fixation.

It would be silly of me, and in fact silly of others to think I meant that people can't pick and choose "race" and "nationality" from photographs. I agree you can, I even believe that you can accurately do it. I will even assume you are very good and have a 96% pick rate.

However, when it comes down to "real" I need a pick rate of 100.0%. Even more so when it comes to real. I need you to gather up individuals from every "race" of modern man, have them randomly mate for 3 generations and still get a 100.0% pick rate. That's the real difference between species. That's the difference I'm trying to point out to creationists.

If every person alive, all 7 billion of us were sorted to see which of us most resembled Erectus. And every Erectus fossil from every individual that ever lived were somehow recovered with DNA and revived Jurassic park style(something like 1-20 Trillion). Not a single one would remotely resemble a modern man. You couldn't even selectively breed Sapiens to resemble Erectus. Nor could you selectively breed Erectus to look like Sapiens. That's the difference. No matter how hard you tried, my pick rate would be 100.0%

But if I was given the task of sorting through modern man to find individuals that resemble/indistinguishable from other "races." It would be arbitrarily easy.

 

[AV1611VET]

The RCC is one of the earliest Christian churches.

[comment deleted]

 

[Widlast]

i guess that is why some of those skulls were obtained by shooting the aboriginal australian who was wearing it at the time -the theory of evolution is the most extreme form or racism there is ,considering at the time any one not upright ,white and in a suit was "less evolved and so less then human "-ie an animal to be shot -its an ugly ugly godless satanic theory .

Now THERE is some racism. I hate to be the one to tell you this but an Australian Aborigine is walking around with the same skull you have. Which is not what H. erectus had.
You can keep whatever delusions you have about history or Genesis, the fact of the matter is that our ancestors walked loose on the Earth ages ago, and they were not the same as us.

 

[Biologist]

Now THERE is some racism. I hate to be the one to tell you this but an Australian Aborigine is walking around with the same skull you have. Which is not what H. erectus had.
You can keep whatever delusions you have about history or Genesis, the fact of the matter is that our ancestors walked loose on the Earth ages ago, and they were not the same as us.

I don't know if she is hiding an Erectus sized skull behind that pretty face. But at this point I'm too mesmerized to find out.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know if she is hiding an Erectus sized skull behind that pretty face. But at this point I'm too mesmerized to find out.

Ya, but can she cook?

 

[Biologist]

Ya, but can she cook?

It depends on JellyQuest's tiny hidden skull theory. If he is right, then probably not. If I'm right, she can cook and probably also verbalize complex language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I dint view the rcc as christian .they worship Mary and follow the pope. I don't.
And your atheist. Nothing you have to say on the matter is of value to me.

My atheist? What do you mean by that? And like it or not Catholics are just as Christian as you are. Perhaps more so. It appears that you know nothing of either science or Christianity. People here can help you with that. Both Christian and non-Christian.[/QUOTE]