Progression: Neanderthal to CroMagnon, etc.

[Erasmus7]

Good day.

I have a query, this time regarding the supposed evolution from proto-ape form through to Neanderthal and other various homo types and discoveries, to CroMagnon and then to man today.

As I have indicated before, I am an Evangelical Christian, and this is part of an ongoing quest of mine for some years to attempt to find closure on the evolution-creation question.

As regards my query: I am struck by the argument of the evolution camp based on the gradation from proto-ape type (40 million years ago?), to Neanderthal, to CroMagnon and then to us today.

Now I am aware of creationist counter-arguments concerning the somewhat fractured remains of the supposed Neanderthals and others, ie, that complete skeletons are rare and that it is difficult to build any framework or postulate how Neanderthals, etc, may have evolved from a prior form and then evolved to the CroMagnons, etc.

I am not looking at this question, ie of the quality of existing remains, in this thread. Rather I am looking at a general overview from probability. In other words, even if the argument concerning limited use of fractured skeletal remains is sound, it does seem to me that an evolutionist argument can be constructed simply on logical progression, ie a probability argument that there does seem to be an upward development and advance in technology, intelligence, creative thought and lifestyle, up through the different ‘homos’ to us today.

1. For one thing, what were the Neanderthals? What are the diffferent views among creationists as to their relation to adam and adamic man? If they preceded Adam, how do we interpret them in the light of the Bible?

I am aware that some have said that they were actually quite intelligent and not as ‘dense’ as some have made out. However, to the best of my knowledge, they seem to have sat around in caves for 400 000 years with a limited stone technology, doing little other than hunting and existing. Even cave art only comes later with the CroMagnons. So the Neanderthals did not even have a decent level of creativity or abstract thought. So what on earth were they? How do they fit into a biblical pattern of creation?

2. The CroMagnons started about 35 000 years ago – if scientific dating methods are accurate. They seem, very suddenly, to have emerged and almost immediately to have advanced significantly beyond the sloth-like pace of the Neanderthals. They had cave drawings, evidence of art, burial, and more sophisticated dwellings.

Of course, the fact that they appeared so suddenly, and with such advances, may be seen as an argument for sudden creation. The question still remains, however, as to how to view them in the light of scripture, not to mention a creationist scientific interpretation.

A convenient way of dealing with such like is to say that they were some form of creation or being, whether properly called human or not (in the biblical definition of ‘human’, that is.) One might make an argument about Neanderthals not being human, but it is a bit more difficult with CroMagnons.

Going back to the dating question, it might help if Neanderthal remains were found with remains of so-called older animals, such as dinosaurs, therapsids, etc. Such would help the creationist cause significantly. To the best of my knowledge, however, such has not been discovered, at least not in any significant quantity. I believe I read that the dinosaur footprint claim (in New Mexico?) has been debunked.

3. Then there are we moderns. The evolutionary theory is that when the ice age receded some 10 000 years ago, we adapted a different, more sedentary existence, as we no longer had to fight against extreme cold and could start farming the earth.

Now even if one dismisses evidence of skeletal progression from, eg, Neanderthals to CroMagnons, it does seem, given the above general pattern, that there is some kind of progression upwards from proto-ape to Neanderthal to CroMagnon, then to us.

That is, from relatively intelligent Neanderthals with basic cave existence, for c400 000 years, then to CroMagnons with their slightly more advanced lifestyle and intelligence, plus evidence of creativity and abstract thought, to us today, there does seem to be a logical forward-motion progression, which it is difficult to dismiss as coincidence.

I would be interested to know creationist ways of looking at and reading this pattern.

1. From a Bible perspective it is tricky enough. How does one relate Neanderthal and CroMagnon to Adam, if at all?
   
   
2. From a Creationist scientific perspective, how are these explained? Were they different pre-creations, with Adam being created 10 000 years ago after CroMagnons? Or has science misfired with dating, and Neanderthals and CroMagnons are part of Adamic creation perhaps 10 000 years ago?

I would really appreciate comment and feedback to the above somewhat lengthy post.

Thanks and regards,
Erasmus

 

[Job 33:6]

Good day.

I have a query, this time regarding the supposed evolution from proto-ape form through to Neanderthal and other various homo types and discoveries, to CroMagnon and then to man today.

As I have indicated before, I am an Evangelical Christian, and this is part of an ongoing quest of mine for some years to attempt to find closure on the evolution-creation question.

As regards my query: I am struck by the argument of the evolution camp based on the gradation from proto-ape type (40 million years ago?), to Neanderthal, to CroMagnon and then to us today.

Now I am aware of creationist counter-arguments concerning the somewhat fractured remains of the supposed Neanderthals and others, ie, that complete skeletons are rare and that it is difficult to build any framework or postulate how Neanderthals, etc, may have evolved from a prior form and then evolved to the CroMagnons, etc.

I am not looking at this question, ie of the quality of existing remains, in this thread. Rather I am looking at a general overview from probability. In other words, even if the argument concerning limited use of fractured skeletal remains is sound, it does seem to me that an evolutionist argument can be constructed simply on logical progression, ie a probability argument that there does seem to be an upward development and advance in technology, intelligence, creative thought and lifestyle, up through the different ‘homos’ to us today.

1. For one thing, what were the Neanderthals? What are the diffferent views among creationists as to their relation to adam and adamic man? If they preceded Adam, how do we interpret them in the light of the Bible?

I am aware that some have said that they were actually quite intelligent and not as ‘dense’ as some have made out. However, to the best of my knowledge, they seem to have sat around in caves for 400 000 years with a limited stone technology, doing little other than hunting and existing. Even cave art only comes later with the CroMagnons. So the Neanderthals did not even have a decent level of creativity or abstract thought. So what on earth were they? How do they fit into a biblical pattern of creation?

2. The CroMagnons started about 35 000 years ago – if scientific dating methods are accurate. They seem, very suddenly, to have emerged and almost immediately to have advanced significantly beyond the sloth-like pace of the Neanderthals. They had cave drawings, evidence of art, burial, and more sophisticated dwellings.

Of course, the fact that they appeared so suddenly, and with such advances, may be seen as an argument for sudden creation. The question still remains, however, as to how to view them in the light of scripture, not to mention a creationist scientific interpretation.

A convenient way of dealing with such like is to say that they were some form of creation or being, whether properly called human or not (in the biblical definition of ‘human’, that is.) One might make an argument about Neanderthals not being human, but it is a bit more difficult with CroMagnons.

Going back to the dating question, it might help if Neanderthal remains were found with remains of so-called older animals, such as dinosaurs, therapsids, etc. Such would help the creationist cause significantly. To the best of my knowledge, however, such has not been discovered, at least not in any significant quantity. I believe I read that the dinosaur footprint claim (in New Mexico?) has been debunked.

3. Then there are we moderns. The evolutionary theory is that when the ice age receded some 10 000 years ago, we adapted a different, more sedentary existence, as we no longer had to fight against extreme cold and could start farming the earth.

Now even if one dismisses evidence of skeletal progression from, eg, Neanderthals to CroMagnons, it does seem, given the above general pattern, that there is some kind of progression upwards from proto-ape to Neanderthal to CroMagnon, then to us.

That is, from relatively intelligent Neanderthals with basic cave existence, for c400 000 years, then to CroMagnons with their slightly more advanced lifestyle and intelligence, plus evidence of creativity and abstract thought, to us today, there does seem to be a logical forward-motion progression, which it is difficult to dismiss as coincidence.

I would be interested to know creationist ways of looking at and reading this pattern.

1. From a Bible perspective it is tricky enough. How does one relate Neanderthal and CroMagnon to Adam, if at all?
   
   
2. From a Creationist scientific perspective, how are these explained? Were they different pre-creations, with Adam being created 10 000 years ago after CroMagnons? Or has science misfired with dating, and Neanderthals and CroMagnons are part of Adamic creation perhaps 10 000 years ago?

I would really appreciate comment and feedback to the above somewhat lengthy post.

Thanks and regards,
Erasmus

Hi there Erasmus,

I wont try to make a comment from a biblical perspective, as these are questions I suppose I could ask as well.

But, i just want to throw into the discussion that neanderthals were a seperate species from cro magnon. Neanderthals are considered to have gone extinct, as opposed to evolving to become cro magnon.

Also, i just want to add that neanderthals were not human. However, there was cross breeding between early mankind and neanderthals, which has resulted in people of today, having neanderthal genes.

Just a couple of things to take into consideration.

And there were many other human like species and proto people.

Homo - Wikipedia
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

If you look at the link above, the table even makes note of how many of these individuals have been found. So, i just wanted to shed a bit of light on just what kind of fossils are out there.

Otherwise, best of luck in your searches. Sometimes evolution is easier to understand when you look at fossils of non human species. Like fish and birds etc. When you talk about human evolution, the controversy increases, and sometimes people forget about the facts and speak on emotion.

 

[sfs]

2. The CroMagnons started about 35 000 years ago – if scientific dating methods are accurate. They seem, very suddenly, to have emerged and almost immediately to have advanced significantly beyond the sloth-like pace of the Neanderthals. They had cave drawings, evidence of art, burial, and more sophisticated dwellings.

Cro Magnons aren't a separate kind of human; they're anatomically modern Homo sapiens, just like us. All the term really means is "the first Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe".

 

[Papias]

Good day.
I have a query, this time regarding the supposed evolution from proto-ape form through to Neanderthal and other various homo types and discoveries, to CroMagnon and then to man today........
Now I am aware of creationist counter-arguments concerning the somewhat fractured remains of the supposed Neanderthals and others, ie, that complete skeletons are rare....

What creationists have apparently told you is misleading. Specifically, there is no dearth of fossils showing a clear and gradual progression from chimplike ape to human. First of all, skeletons are symmetric, so if a right arm is missing, you have the left arm. If a couple ribs are missing in the middle, you can still see the whole ribcage's shape, etc. Of course few skeletons are "complete", but who cares? The creationist line of "we don't have many fossils" was true in 1890, but not today - yet they still repeat it, even though we have literally hundreds of fossils - so many, in fact that we can see side branches and such on the bush of human evolution. Here are just a few, that easily show the evolution from chimplike ape to human.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/hominids2_big.jpg
Those skulls are from oldest to youngest, except "A", which is a modern chimp, to show that our ancestors 6 million years ago were very like chimps.

· (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
· (B) 2.6 Million years ago

• 
  
  • (C) 2.5 Million years

• 
  
  • (D) 1.9 My

• 
  
  • (E) 1.8 My

• 
  
  • (F) 1.8 My

• 
  
  • (G) 1.75 My

• 
  
  • (H) 1.75 My

• 
  
  • (I) 300,000 - 125,000 y

• 
  
  • (J) 70,000 y

• 
  
  • (K) 60,000 y

• 
  
  • (L) 45,000 y

• 
  
  • (M) 30,000 y

• 
  
  • (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Further, you can see how smooth this was by looking at the data from fossils of dozens of individuals, here - you can see a smooth increase in brain size (vertical axis) with time (horizontal axis).

https://letterstocreationists.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/plot-brain-sizes-vs-age.jpg

Make sense? The fossils alone show that we evolved from earlier apes, not to mention the confirmations with DNA, proteins, and so many other confirmations.

... argument can be constructed simply on logical progression, ie a probability argument that there does seem to be an upward development and advance in technology, intelligence, creative thought and lifestyle, up through the different ‘homos’ to us today......

I"m not sure what you are looking for here. We see a very clear increase in technology, intelligence, creative thought and lifestyle, confirming the fossils. For instance, most tool use is by humans and other primates/apes, and the ape tools are very simple (rocks and twigs), early human tools are better (stone axes then arrowheads) tools from later humans are better (bronze age tools), and are of course better today. The same goes for the other categories (for instance, the increase in intelligence can be seen with the brain size graph I posted above).

It all fits together nicely, and it makes sense that as people evolved bigger brains that their tool use, intelligence, lifestyle, etc, would all improve over time. Make sense?

In Christ -

Papias

 

[stevevw]

Good day.

I have a query, this time regarding the supposed evolution from proto-ape form through to Neanderthal and other various homo types and discoveries, to CroMagnon and then to man today.

As I have indicated before, I am an Evangelical Christian, and this is part of an ongoing quest of mine for some years to attempt to find closure on the evolution-creation question.

As regards my query: I am struck by the argument of the evolution camp based on the gradation from proto-ape type (40 million years ago?), to Neanderthal, to CroMagnon and then to us today.

Now I am aware of creationist counter-arguments concerning the somewhat fractured remains of the supposed Neanderthals and others, ie, that complete skeletons are rare and that it is difficult to build any framework or postulate how Neanderthals, etc, may have evolved from a prior form and then evolved to the CroMagnons, etc.

I am not looking at this question, ie of the quality of existing remains, in this thread. Rather I am looking at a general overview from probability. In other words, even if the argument concerning limited use of fractured skeletal remains is sound, it does seem to me that an evolutionist argument can be constructed simply on logical progression, ie a probability argument that there does seem to be an upward development and advance in technology, intelligence, creative thought and lifestyle, up through the different ‘homos’ to us today.

1. For one thing, what were the Neanderthals? What are the diffferent views among creationists as to their relation to adam and adamic man? If they preceded Adam, how do we interpret them in the light of the Bible?

I am aware that some have said that they were actually quite intelligent and not as ‘dense’ as some have made out. However, to the best of my knowledge, they seem to have sat around in caves for 400 000 years with a limited stone technology, doing little other than hunting and existing. Even cave art only comes later with the CroMagnons. So the Neanderthals did not even have a decent level of creativity or abstract thought. So what on earth were they? How do they fit into a biblical pattern of creation?

2. The CroMagnons started about 35 000 years ago – if scientific dating methods are accurate. They seem, very suddenly, to have emerged and almost immediately to have advanced significantly beyond the sloth-like pace of the Neanderthals. They had cave drawings, evidence of art, burial, and more sophisticated dwellings.

Of course, the fact that they appeared so suddenly, and with such advances, may be seen as an argument for sudden creation. The question still remains, however, as to how to view them in the light of scripture, not to mention a creationist scientific interpretation.

A convenient way of dealing with such like is to say that they were some form of creation or being, whether properly called human or not (in the biblical definition of ‘human’, that is.) One might make an argument about Neanderthals not being human, but it is a bit more difficult with CroMagnons.

Going back to the dating question, it might help if Neanderthal remains were found with remains of so-called older animals, such as dinosaurs, therapsids, etc. Such would help the creationist cause significantly. To the best of my knowledge, however, such has not been discovered, at least not in any significant quantity. I believe I read that the dinosaur footprint claim (in New Mexico?) has been debunked.

3. Then there are we moderns. The evolutionary theory is that when the ice age receded some 10 000 years ago, we adapted a different, more sedentary existence, as we no longer had to fight against extreme cold and could start farming the earth.

Now even if one dismisses evidence of skeletal progression from, eg, Neanderthals to CroMagnons, it does seem, given the above general pattern, that there is some kind of progression upwards from proto-ape to Neanderthal to CroMagnon, then to us.

That is, from relatively intelligent Neanderthals with basic cave existence, for c400 000 years, then to CroMagnons with their slightly more advanced lifestyle and intelligence, plus evidence of creativity and abstract thought, to us today, there does seem to be a logical forward-motion progression, which it is difficult to dismiss as coincidence.

I would be interested to know creationist ways of looking at and reading this pattern.

1. From a Bible perspective it is tricky enough. How does one relate Neanderthal and CroMagnon to Adam, if at all?
   
   
2. From a Creationist scientific perspective, how are these explained? Were they different pre-creations, with Adam being created 10 000 years ago after CroMagnons? Or has science misfired with dating, and Neanderthals and CroMagnons are part of Adamic creation perhaps 10 000 years ago?

I would really appreciate comment and feedback to the above somewhat lengthy post.

Thanks and regards,
Erasmus

Not sure where you are getting your info from but Neandathals actually lived and mated with Humans. So if they were big and dumb then so are we as we share their DNA.

 

[jhwatts]

What creationists have apparently told you is misleading. Specifically, there is no dearth of fossils showing a clear and gradual progression from chimplike ape to human. First of all, skeletons are symmetric, so if a right arm is missing, you have the left arm. If a couple ribs are missing in the middle, you can still see the whole ribcage's shape, etc. Of course few skeletons are "complete", but who cares? The creationist line of "we don't have many fossils" was true in 1890, but not today - yet they still repeat it, even though we have literally hundreds of fossils - so many, in fact that we can see side branches and such on the bush of human evolution. Here are just a few, that easily show the evolution from chimplike ape to human.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/hominids2_big.jpg
Those skulls are from oldest to youngest, except "A", which is a modern chimp, to show that our ancestors 6 million years ago were very like chimps.

· (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
· (B) 2.6 Million years ago

• 
  
  • (C) 2.5 Million years

• 
  
  • (D) 1.9 My

• 
  
  • (E) 1.8 My

• 
  
  • (F) 1.8 My

• 
  
  • (G) 1.75 My

• 
  
  • (H) 1.75 My

• 
  
  • (I) 300,000 - 125,000 y

• 
  
  • (J) 70,000 y

• 
  
  • (K) 60,000 y

• 
  
  • (L) 45,000 y

• 
  
  • (M) 30,000 y

• 
  
  • (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Further, you can see how smooth this was by looking at the data from fossils of dozens of individuals, here - you can see a smooth increase in brain size (vertical axis) with time (horizontal axis).

https://letterstocreationists.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/plot-brain-sizes-vs-age.jpg

Make sense? The fossils alone show that we evolved from earlier apes, not to mention the confirmations with DNA, proteins, and so many other confirmations.



I"m not sure what you are looking for here. We see a very clear increase in technology, intelligence, creative thought and lifestyle, confirming the fossils. For instance, most tool use is by humans and other primates/apes, and the ape tools are very simple (rocks and twigs), early human tools are better (stone axes then arrowheads) tools from later humans are better (bronze age tools), and are of course better today. The same goes for the other categories (for instance, the increase in intelligence can be seen with the brain size graph I posted above).

It all fits together nicely, and it makes sense that as people evolved bigger brains that their tool use, intelligence, lifestyle, etc, would all improve over time. Make sense?

In Christ -

Papias

I'm curious about the chart. I see no change between roughly 3.25 to 2 million years then a sudden increased until the present. What do you think triggered the sudden brain size increase?

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm curious about the chart. I see no change between roughly 3.25 to 2 million years then a sudden increased until the present. What do you think triggered the sudden brain size increase?

This is a good question. With every evolutionary advance through time (first teeth, first feathers, first legs, first eyes etc) people can suggest causes for their accelerated development. For example, teeth of course would accelerate in growth and perhaps sharpness, giving a clear advantage for predators. At the same time though, often these matters can be more complex. Would teeth evolution also correlate with defensive shell evolution? Would harder shell evolution be the result of...some sort of enhanced calcium rich waste product released from the bodies of worms?

Regarding the human brain, there would be countless factors that could have weighed in on the enhancement of the brain.

History Module: The Expansion of the Hominid Brain

Use of tools, use of language, diet related factors may have played a role, providing resources to the body. The shape of the spine with opposable thumbs, the process of giving birth even, the potential destruction of predators etc. There are countless factors that may have held a role in the accelerated growth of our brain.

 

[jhwatts]

This is a good question. With every evolutionary advance through time (first teeth, first feathers, first legs, first eyes etc) people can suggest causes for their accelerated development. For example, teeth of course would accelerate in growth and perhaps sharpness, giving a clear advantage for predators. At the same time though, often these matters can be more complex. Would teeth evolution also correlate with defensive shell evolution? Would harder shell evolution be the result of...some sort of enhanced calcium rich waste product released from the bodies of worms?

Regarding the human brain, there would be countless factors that could have weighed in on the enhancement of the brain.

History Module: The Expansion of the Hominid Brain

Use of tools, use of language, diet related factors may have played a role, providing resources to the body. The shape of the spine with opposable thumbs, the process of giving birth even, the potential destruction of predators etc. There are countless factors that may have held a role in the accelerated growth of our brain.

I also find it strange that change in size between 2 million years to the present is perfectly linear . Biological systems, in particular, those that change over time are very non-linear.

 

[stevevw]

I have some concerns about the very slight changes between some of the Skulls as the cange is no greater than the range of variation within the same species. Most of the bottom row of skulls could also fall within the variations of a single species so we have to be careful about being to quick to placing some fossils as new species when they maybe normal variation of the same species.


Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks.
The odd dimensions of the fossil prompted the team to look at normal skull variation, both in modern humans and chimps, to see how they compared. They found that while the Dmanisi skulls looked different to one another, the variations were no greater than those seen among modern people and among chimps.
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray

 

[Goatee]

God created man in His own image......

 

[Job 33:6]

I ahve some concrns about the very slight changes between some of the Skulls as the cange is no greater than the range of variation within the same species. Most of the bottom row of skulls could also fall within the variations of a single species so we have to be careful about being to quick to placing some fossils as new species when they maybe normal variation of the same species.


Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks.
The odd dimensions of the fossil prompted the team to look at normal skull variation, both in modern humans and chimps, to see how they compared. They found that while the Dmanisi skulls looked different to one another, the variations were no greater than those seen among modern people and among chimps.
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray

Variations found in the succession of skulls cannot be attributed to the same species of being. This is because the variation smoothly grades from clearly non human beings. For example, the opening in the base of the human skull is above the spine in people, but in other apes it is toward the back of the skull. When you go back in time, this variation is seen in these skulls of the fossil succession.

This means that, the only way they could be called homo sapien skulls is if mankind walked on 4 legs. But people do not walk on 4 legs. The reasonable conclusion being that they weren't human.

 

[Job 33:6]

I also find it strange that change in size between 2 million years to the present is perfectly linear . Biological systems, in particular, those that change over time are very non-linear.

This might depend on the number of fossils examined, and the time which those fossils expanse. Darwinian gradualism and punctuated equilibrium appear different. Fossil groups that are well populated depict "random walks" through millions of years. Depending on your perspective you might see a smooth gradient, other times a gradient that goes back and forth. Some gradients flow smoothly, some jump around.

The succession in human fossils is well populated. There are relatively speaking, a lot of proto human fossils compared to other species. And our history in development is a recent occurance. So you might see more clarity in human evolution than you would in something like T. Rex where there may only be 13 or so specimen that span tens of millions of years.

 

[stevevw]

Variations found in the succession of skulls cannot be attributed to the same species of being. This is because the variation smoothly grades from clearly non human beings. For example, the opening in the base of the human skull is above the spine in people, but in other apes it is toward the back of the skull. When you go back in time, this variation is seen in these skulls of the fossil succession.

This means that, the only way they could be called homo sapien skulls is if mankind walked on 4 legs. But people do not walk on 4 legs. The reasonable conclusion being that they weren't human.

I dont't think its as simple as that. Most of the skulls found are not that complete to show the position of the foramen magnum plus there is not a lot of difference between some species in the position of the foramen magnum. It appears that of the fossils that are available there is only a little difference in the position of the foramen magnum for earlier skulls then a sudden jump to a closer position for humans with a small difference in the modern hominids.

The skulls at Georgia are said to cover the variations in skull shapes for Homo habilis, Homo ergaster and Homo rudolfensis who were classed as different species but are noww said to be one species, Homo Erectus. So the position of the foramen magnum if available as fossils are very few and often missing was probably very slight and not enough to justify saying they were transitions yet the experts still made them new species. From what I have seen of the fossil evidence there are slight differences in the position of the foramen magnum but it is nothing like the 16 or so skulls shown in skull gradiations.

The experts are either wrong in their previous calculations and/or speculation about the skulls or there is a small amount of room for the position of the foramen magnum within a single species but they cant have it both ways. Becuase of the lack of fossil evidence, the sudden jump in position of the foramen magnum, the fact that there can be small difference in the position of the foramen magnum within species, and that the experts have already been wrong in their assessment of what is normal variation within one species and what is a new species (taking into account the position of the foramen magnum it could be that there is a relatively small amount of species for apes and humans that have a lot of variation.

 

[Job 33:6]

I dont't think its as simple as that. Most of the skulls found are not that complete to show the position of the foramen magnum plus there is not a lot of difference between some species in the position of the foramen magnum. It appears that of the fossils that are available there is only a little difference in the position of the foramen magnum for earlier skulls then a sudden jump to a closer position for humans with a small difference in the modern hominids.

The skulls at Georgia are said to cover the variations in skull shapes for Homo habilis, Homo ergaster and Homo rudolfensis who were classed as different species but are noww said to be one species, Homo Erectus. So the position of the foramen magnum if available as fossils are very few and often missing was probably very slight and not enough to justify saying they were transitions yet the experts still made them new species. From what I have seen of the fossil evidence there are slight differences in the position of the foramen magnum but it is nothing like the 16 or so skulls shown in skull gradiations.

The experts are either wrong in their previous calculations and/or speculation about the skulls or there is a small amount of room for the position of the foramen magnum within a single species but they cant have it both ways. Becuase of the lack of fossil evidence, the sudden jump in position of the foramen magnum, the fact that there can be small difference in the position of the foramen magnum within species, and that the experts have already been wrong in their assessment of what is normal variation within one species and what is a new species (taking into account the position of the foramen magnum it could be that there is a relatively small amount of species for apes and humans that have a lot of variation.

http://68.media.tumblr.com/d002b3389fcaa841641483a4afc5c729/tumblr_mtrgj7yBgl1r46foao2_1280.jpg

Heres an example of a skull with the foremen magnum that is more upright, in an "earlier skull". There could not be a "jump" in the position of the foramen magnum, as it is already as close as can be in sahelanthropus, without being fully human. The sahelanthropus skull is borderline human already, and yet it isnt human at all. The skull is the size of a chimps and it has large cheek teeth like a non human ape. Yet its snout is more flat, with a C shaped pallet, as if it is human.

See below for some graphs. There is no "jump" in snouth length. You have sahelanthropus, the oldest up front, australopithecus in the middle, archaic homo toward the end, then homo sapiens (us) to finish it off.. The same goes with cranial capacity. The same goes with jaw length.

These are not "jumps". They are gradations.

 

[Job 33:6]

what would human evolution look like in the fossil succession, if not like the graphs posted above?

 

[jhwatts]

what would human evolution look like in the fossil succession, if not like the graphs posted above?

At fist glance, I see a disconnect. Looking at the plot of cranium size over time and then looking at the plot growth rate over time; the growth rate over time should corresponds to the first difference in size over time. It does not. I could show what this should look like if I had the actual data points. This tells there is a fundamental flaw in one of the two data sets.

 

[Job 33:6]

your response is laughable at best.

 

[stevevw]

So that must make Jesus decendent of apemen as by blood line he is the Son of Mary and his line goes back to King David.

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe this image has fewer gaps for the doubters in the room.
http://www.indiana.edu/~brainevo/publications/schoenemann-hominid-brain-evol-2013.pdf

The data itself is listed in the PDF. Again we see older fossils like those of sahelanthropus early on. Australopithecus following with a somewhat larger average brain capacity, followed further by homo with varying but larger still brain capacity on average, then at the peak you have neanderthals and ourselves.

 

[stevevw]

These are not "jumps". They are gradations.

homo habilis is no longer regarded as a direct human ancestor but more an ape. like the Australopithecus genus it is apelike, has long arms, short legs and hands and feet suitable for climbing trees.
Homo habilis - Australian Museum
plus you have the Dmanisi skulls that place several species such as
H rudolfensis, H gautengensis, H ergaster and possibly H habilis into one species homo erectus. the vaiations within the 4 or 5 skulls found at Georgia would just about cover the entire range of species in the chart posted. what it is pointing to is that there may only be very few species rather than many and that palaeontologistshave been too quick to list different shaped skulls as new species. Skull 5 had a long face like Homo erectus yet a protruding jaw like a brain size like homo Habilis at around 546cm and large teeth like Homo Rudolfensis.

As you can see the flatter ape like brow and skull, protruding jaw and smaller brain case of skull 5 and the flatter face, higher rounded and larger modern human like skull 4 which between these difference can cover many species. Skulls 2 and 3 have the sloping face and jaw like skulls b and c in the line of skulls and skull 4 is similar to more modern look as in skulls K or L. All these features had not been seen together in any other discoveries of skulls before.
Beautiful Skull Spurs Debate on Human History

Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray

As far as the sahelanthropus having a transitional foramen magnum this seems strange for such an ancient species who was basically an ape that climbed and lived in trees. Later species Australopithecus and Homo Habilis were classed as apes and tree climbers so not even more modern human ancestors had the ability to walk. Plus I do not understand how the transition can happen all of a sudden without a gradual stepping from the rear of the skull to the middle of the skull. We should see a range of positions working towards the centre of the skull just like there is a range of transitions always presented in the skulls etc. Plus hat came first the ability to walk or the centre positioned foramen magnum to allow walking. They could not have come at the same time and one without the other would be difficult to navigate.