Is Erectus an anatomically modern human?

[JellyQuest]

In other words more dishonesty from creationists. Why am I not surprised.

deny deny deny lol . t

No, we just want a debate on the topic. I can't put you down just for being Christian. You can't put me down for being an atheist. It is in the rules here. And you definitely can't tell a fellow Christian that they are not a Christian.



Be very careful how you tread with your fellow Christians. And as to the quote from Psalm that you do not understand it does not say that atheists are fools. You did not understand that verse. Also it appears that you have no knowledge of what an atheist is. Hating something that you do not understand is not logical.



Sorry it does not say that. Your inability to understand your own Bible makes it a very poor weapon. Also your Bible is a"knife" that only cuts one way. Even if you did understand it the Bible has no more force against non-Christians than the Koran has against you. Are you frightened when Muslims quote the Koran at you? If you understood why you weren't you would understand why others laugh when you quote the Bible at them. It is not an effective way to bring people to your God. And it is a losing technique in any debate. Why post something that only makes you lose the argument?

doube sorry but it does say that . psalm 14. very well known text.
whether you heed it or not it still says it and long after i'm banned and your gone it will still say it . unless your a faker athiest (there are so many of those these days )
i'm always careful how i treat fellow christians ,where they ARE fellow christians. no one is putting you down ,we cannot discuss bible creation account vs evolution theoery and leave out that the foundation from which it is debated . one is the foundation of faith the other the foundation of fool . ouch i guess .

 

[AV1611VET]

Many people in history argued that the Bible did not jive with the Heliocentrism idea.

Don't blame 'many people in history.'

You guys do the same thing!

 

[Subduction Zone]

deny deny deny lol . t

There was no denial. I am sorry if that was too difficult for you to understand. Tell me what parts you had trouble with and I will gladly help you.

doube sorry but it does say that . psalm 14. very well known text.

Wrong again. You simply did not understand it. No atheist here says in his heart that there is no God that I know of. There are atheists that make that mistake. They get mad at God because of something that happened to them and do not believe for that reason. They tend to be temporary atheists. Most atheists simply lack a belief in God. There is a big difference. Do you think that you could understand it? I am having my doubts that you could.

whether you heed it or not it still says it and long after i'm banned and your gone it will still say it . unless your a faker athiest (there are so many of those these days )

You can say it as much as you like, but you will still be wrong. Of course not understanding the Bible is quite common among literalists.

i'm always careful how i treat fellow christians ,where they ARE fellow christians. no one is putting you down ,we cannot discuss bible creation account vs evolution theoery and leave out that the foundation from which it is debated . one is the foundation of faith the other the foundation of fool . ouch i guess .

No, the only one that appears to be have the "foundation of fool" here would be you. The best way to discuss this is with evidence. If you were right the evidence should support you. If I am right the evidence should support me.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

It isn't even the size the skull that makes H. erectus different from H. sapiens. In my experience, the easiest diagnostic feature to see is the chin. The front of the lower jaw in modern humans has a process that shoots forward.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't blame 'many people in history.'

You guys do the same thing!

I didn't blame anyone.

 

[Papias]

M is a Cro-magnon (which is classified as early Homo sapiens). Several before that (K, L, etc) are neanderthal. G is Homo erectus - and is luckily directly above H, making them easy to compare. just as above, they are clearly different.

Papias

It's also useful to look at the fossils based on brain volume. Here is a useful graph - it clearly shows the steady increase in brain size over time as apelike ancestors evolved to become modern humans.

H. erectus fossils are in green:

 

[Widlast]

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.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but she is NOT a pure blood Australian aborigine, too pale, hair all wrong.

 

[USincognito]

Exactly what do you see as non-human in that skull?

Oh I don't know. The large jaw and eyebrow ridges and the tiny cranial capacity for for starters.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, they are not modern humans, but simply another infraspecific taxa in the human species.

All life on this planet follows those guidelines: Husky, Mastiff, Poodle for example. Red tailed deer, white tailed deer, mule deer for example. We could do this for every species in existence.

Now look at the fossil record and notice there exist no infraspecific taxa, because they have incorrectly listed them as seperate species. The fossil record is divorced from reality due to this incorrect classification of the different infraspecific taxa within a species as seperate species. This led them to an incorrect belief in gradual evolution of species to species, when it is simply a mistaken classification of the various infraspecific taxa.

 

[Zoii]

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 .

Australian Aboriginals aren't Homo-erectus. Your supposition that my Australian fore-bears where aboriginal hunting racists is offensive and I'm sure other Australians feel the same.

Evolution relates to all species including plants - to say its some how connected to racism isn't logical. The theory is well supported through carbon-dated fossil records and DNA matching. It possesses an evidence base but that doesn't mean proof.

The version you support argues our lineage is through Noah (and before that Adam and Eve though their descendants were all wiped out other than Noah and his wife). Outside of the bible there's been no evidence to support this. You can understand then why, even within the Christian community, literal translation of creation is not universally accepted.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It isn't even the size the skull that makes H. erectus different from H. sapiens. In my experience, the easiest diagnostic feature to see is the chin. The front of the lower jaw in modern humans has a process that shoots forward.

Sort of like the differences between a pug and collie?

I have no problem understanding the different infraspecific taxa within a species vary greatly in appearance, but proves neither evolution nor seperate species.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's also useful to look at the fossils based on brain volume. Here is a useful graph - it clearly shows the steady increase in brain size over time as apelike ancestors evolved to become modern humans.

H. erectus fossils are in green:

Sort of like the brain size between say a pug and a Mastiff?

So that really doesn't show evolution at all, just the variation in size and appearance that occurs within the different infraspecific taxa in the species itself. It proves no gradual evolutionary changes from species to species any more than a pug or Mastiff prove evolution to different species.

It's that tendency to incorrectly list the infraspecific taxa in the species in the fossil record as seperate species which leads to your confusion of gradual evolutionary change, when those differences do not warrant that conclusion based upon observation of life around us today.

 

[JellyQuest]

Australian Aboriginals aren't Homo-erectus. Your supposition that my Australian fore-bears where aboriginal hunting racists is offensive and I'm sure other Australians feel the same.

Evolution relates to all species including plants - to say its some how connected to racism isn't logical. The theory is well supported through carbon-dated fossil records and DNA matching. It possesses an evidence base but that doesn't mean proof.

The version you support argues our lineage is through Noah (and before that Adam and Eve though their descendants were all wiped out other than Noah and his wife). Outside of the bible there's been no evidence to support this. You can understand then why, even within the Christian community, literal translation of creation is not universally accepted.

well you got that message all mixed up rather a lot .

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Australian Aboriginals aren't Homo-erectus. Your supposition that my Australian fore-bears where aboriginal hunting racists is offensive and I'm sure other Australians feel the same.

Evolution relates to all species including plants - to say its some how connected to racism isn't logical. The theory is well supported through carbon-dated fossil records and DNA matching. It possesses an evidence base but that doesn't mean proof.

The version you support argues our lineage is through Noah (and before that Adam and Eve though their descendants were all wiped out other than Noah and his wife). Outside of the bible there's been no evidence to support this. You can understand then why, even within the Christian community, literal translation of creation is not universally accepted.

Poodles aren't Mastiffs, but I don't think they would be racially offended if you called them both dogs.

 

[Jimmy D]

It's that tendency to incorrectly list the infraspecific taxa in the species in the fossil record as seperate species which leads to your confusion of gradual evolutionary change, when those differences do not warrant that conclusion based upon observation of life around us today.

It's been explained to you many times in this thread why this is wrong. Is there anything that might convince you that you're mistaken or will you cling to these weird ideas no matter what?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's been explained to you many times in this thread why this is wrong. Is there anything that might convince you that you're mistaken or will you cling to these weird ideas no matter what?

The only thing explained is that you want me to ignore that every species has many infraspecific taxa within it and then in the fossil record I am to ignore that you have not a single one.

The simple fact is you don't want to face up to the reality that you have incorrectly classified the seperate infraspecific taxa in the fossil record as seperate species.

I understand that you want us all to ignore the world around us and how life actually propagates to keep your faith.

But you have no argument except denial of the real world.

I'll ask again. Show me the different infraspecific taxa in the fossil record for each species that we know must have existed by observation of the reality around us versus your fantasy?

If you can't do that then you have no choice but to admit to a flawed classification system that does not reflect reality but is based upon mere whim in classification.

And please point out in this thread that one single explanation?.....

 

[Jimmy D]

The only thing explained is that you want me to ignore that every species has many infraspecific taxa within it and then in the fossil record I am to ignore that you have not a single one.

The simple fact is you don't want to face up to the reality that you have incorrectly classified the seperate infraspecific taxa in the fossil record as seperate species.

I understand that you want us all to ignore the world around us and how life actually propagates to keep your faith.

But you have no argument except denial of the real world.

I'll ask again. Show me the different infraspecific taxa in the fossil record for each species that we know must have existed by observation of the reality around us versus your fantasy?

If you can't do that then you have no choice but to admit to a flawed classification system that does not reflect reality but is based upon mere whim in classification.

And please point out in this thread that one single explanation?.....

Doesn't really answer the question I asked.

 

[Radrook]

Many people in history argued that the Bible did not jive with the Heliocentrism idea. Does that mean the Sun moves about the Earth?

Please read the following article:

Technically, Earth Does Not Orbit Around the Sun
Technically, Earth Does Not Orbit Around the Sun | RealClearScience

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Doesn't really answer the question I asked.

There is no answer as long as you cling to denying the reality around us. Every species in existence has many infraspecific taxa within it, yes?

Then please show me the infraspecific taxa within the species in the fossil record?

Quit obfuscating and produce or just admit you are wrong as there are none classified correctly.

Oh and I am still waiting on that post that explained my error?

 

[Jimmy D]

There is no answer as long as you cling to denying the reality around us. Every species in existence has many infraspecific taxa within it, yes?

Then please show me the infraspecific taxa within the species in the fossil record?

Quit obfuscating and produce or just admit you are wrong as there are none classified correctly.

Oh and I am still waiting on that post that explained my error?

First of all, I apologize. I thought that I was responding in the "Evidene for Evolution" thread - where you were shown to be mistaken. It gets confusing when you post the same nonsense in every thread.

Now, I asked a simple question, cant you answer?