Is Homo erectus Human or Ape?

[john crawford]

There is no clear boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. Below the neck, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are virtually identical. The head resembles the Neandertals but smaller. A number of evolutionists have stated that although Homo erectus is a bit different they are not so far apart that they should be classified as separate species. In the opinion of Lubenow, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and Neandertals form one continuum.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emhe.htm

I share Lubenow's contention that Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and Neandertals form one 'morphological' continuum and are only morphological variants of one human species rather than 3 different and separate species in the fossil record. Included in this continuum of course, is H. heidlbergensis, which, as you may know, is the so-called fossil ancestor of H. sapiens.

The problem of dividing our human ancestors up into several or many various different and separate 'species' of humans is one created by the evolutionists who need to provide at least several various 'species' of humans in the fossil record in order to create a morphological continuum which associates and relates modern human skulls and bones to those of extinct fossil apes.

Even evolutionists argue amongst themselves over whether certain human fossils should be 'lumped' together in one species or 'split' into two species. Besides joining in the evolutionist's game of dividing human ancestors up into more ape-like or human categories, creationists should be able to drive a wedge into their schemes by specifying which fossils are completely human and which are completely non-human.

So, let's split the fossil record in two, and drive a wedge into fossil theory by drawing the line between ape and human fossils. To the degree that we can agree upon whether H. erectus is fully human or ape, we may be able to form a united front against evolutionists who themselves are divided over whether to lump or separate fossils into various species.

 

[Remus]

That's a tough one John. I think it would be safe to say that some of the fossils probably are human. I would be nice if they found some DNA. Not that they would look for any.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's a tough one John. I think it would be safe to say that some of the fossils probably are human. I would be nice if they found some DNA. Not that they would look for any.

Actually they did manage to extract some DNA from Neaderthal remains. Not much mind you and there was nothing conclusive that came from it but a little. The Flores bones were reserved without even being fossilized, I have often wondered if they could be tested for traces of DNA.

 

[Remus]

Was it this DNA of Neanderthal that lead them to put him in the same species as sapiens?

 

[mark kennedy]

The DNA does not offer anything conclusive and debate about the findings seems endless. There are other things that have lead people to conclude that Neanderthals are just plain humans. It was decided that they had rickets that effected their bone development and they didn't get as much sunlight as they needed to develop normally. You might want to check this out for a more indepth discussion of the issues involved:

"Modern humans have an average of eight mtDNA substitution differences. The Neandertal individual has a minimum of 22 mtDNA substitution differences from the modern human average. That implies that 14 mtDNA substitution differences delineates a new or different species, and that the Neandertals should be so classified. However, mtDNA substitution differences in modern humans range from 1 to 24. That means that there are a few modern humans who differ by 16 substitutions from the modern human average—two substitutions inside the range of the Neandertal individual. Would not logic demand that those few modern humans living today should also be placed in a separate species? To state the question is to reveal the absurdity of using such differences as a measure of species distinctions. Maryellen Ruvolo (Harvard University) points out that the genetic variation between the modern and Neandertal sequences is within the range of other single species of primates. She goes on to say: ‘… there isn’t a yardstick for genetic difference upon which you can define a species’."

Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: an evaluation, Marvin L. Lubenow

I don't really have the time to go into any more depth but this did seem interesting. I have seen both senerios that make the Homo erectus fossils both human or ape, I'm still undecided. I'll have to do a little more reading on the actual fossils before I can decide for sure.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[john crawford]

"Modern humans have an average of eight mtDNA substitution differences. The Neandertal individual has a minimum of 22 mtDNA substitution differences from the modern human average. That implies that 14 mtDNA substitution differences delineates a new or different species, and that the Neandertals should be so classified. However, mtDNA substitution differences in modern humans range from 1 to 24. That means that there are a few modern humans who differ by 16 substitutions from the modern human average—two substitutions inside the range of the Neandertal individual. Would not logic demand that those few modern humans living today should also be placed in a separate species? To state the question is to reveal the absurdity of using such differences as a measure of species distinctions. Maryellen Ruvolo (Harvard University) points out that the genetic variation between the modern and Neandertal sequences is within the range of other single species of primates. She goes on to say: ‘… there isn’t a yardstick for genetic difference upon which you can define a species’."
Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: an evaluation, Marvin L. Lubenow

Since I think Marvin Lubenow is the most authoritative creationist source for conclusions about the human fossil record, I base most, if not all, my own creationist arguments on his assessment of the human fossils in his recently revised and updated 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention.

I don't really have the time to go into any more depth but this did seem interesting. I have seen both senerios that make the Homo erectus fossils both human or ape, I'm still undecided. I'll have to do a little more reading on the actual fossils before I can decide for sure.

If we all agree that Neanderthals were fully human, despite evolutionist opinions which only serve to dehumanize them, I would like this thread to concentrate on whether Homo erecutus fossils may be said to be equally representive of fully human beings, even though the odd skull morphology is used by evolutionists to justify their calling H. erectus another species. Toward that end, I will post links which further substantiate Lubenow's claim that H. erectus is only a morphological variant of fully modern human beings.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_05.html

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emhe.htm

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

 

[john crawford]

That's a tough one John. I think it would be safe to say that some of the fossils probably are human.

It is important that creationists have some authoritive guide to assist them in determing which fossils are human and which are not. To this end, I recommend going by Lubenow, since with his publication of "Bones of Contention," he is the leading authority on the human fossil record in the creationist camp.

Since evolutionists can only succeed in confusing the public about ape to human evolution in the fossil record, by morphologically associating the two genara by the shapes and sizes of their skulls, the more we separate the fossils into human and ape types, the greater the fossil gap we create. That's why it is important to regard H. erectus, H. heidlebergensis, the Neanderthals and Modern Man as one species with slight morphological variations due to regional and climatalogical differences.

See post # 6 for weblinks supporting Homo erectus as fully human.

 

[john crawford]

Was it this DNA of Neanderthal that lead them to put him in the same species as sapiens?

They didn't put Neanderthals in the same species as sapiens. They decided that Neanderthals were a different species than you and I are.
If you read Mark's link in post # 5, you will see that "… there isn’t a [DNA] yardstick for genetic difference upon which you can define a species’."
Geneticists merely manipulate genetic data in order to separate human fossils into different species.