Hah! You provide a link with an un-sourced assertion about the IQ of erectus, so I can't look at the actual study. Par for the course, but the really funny bit is this:
"
IQ tests measure something real and something terribly important, but they do not assess all of what is called intelligence. Many important mental abilities are left out. Abilities responsible for art, music, dance, cooking, mechanical invention, clerical exactness, foreign languages, caring for a baby, defeating an enemy in war, and so on, have little connection with IQ. They have little connection because literacy and numeracy have little to do with excellence in these fields."
So in trying to prove that erectus is too stupid to care for its young, you provide a source that specifically says IQ is not a good measure of many capabilities including caring for young.
You've also failed to say why sexual dimorphism prevents infant care or address the clinging response in human babies.
There is evidence for fire use with some erectus. There is not with others. Either this was something learned by a small group, or a mistake was made and the fires were not controlled. So what? None of it has any effect on erectus as a human ancestor or on the theory of evolution in general.
Um... birds and reptiles are not mammals. Really, if you don't know that, I really have no hope for you. Mammals, Astridhere, mammals. There are many mammals that manage to care for their young, offering them the teat rather than having them specifically cling on and seek it themselves. Clinging is a common trait in arboreal mammals like primates, but not so out of the trees. The question you have failed to answer, is that if these creatures, which generally have a lower brain capacity than erectus, can manage it, why can't erectus?
Also, while we're at it, you might want to consider why humans have reflexive cling mechanism, if it is something they have never had any need for.
He posted screen shots of the book while you were still looking at a wiki link.
Fossilisation is rare, but you still need to explain why we have a good number of erectus and not of modern humans. Nor any other evidence of them other than fossiliation. So don't know how you can claim point 2 is valid, real scientists have shown their fossils, where are the creationists' modern humans from that era? Finally, I can garentee if something as monumental as this was found, it would be throughly invesitigated. Look at the recent discovery of nutrinos travelling apparently faster than light. This breaks all sorts of rules, but somehow, despite those evil scientists and their evidence supressing ways, everyone knows about it.
Yes finding bidedalism earlier than expected was surprising, but nothing was fasified. Again, it was a prediction, based on the fact that bidedalism is only present in humans. There was no evidence that it had to be that way, and now we have evidence, both morphological and genetic, that it was the other way round. Interesting, but not a fasiflcation of evidence.
You're the one that keeps banging on about erectus being highly sexual dimorphic. Don't you understand what that means? Hint, the female pelvis has less of an effect on Turkana boy than you appear to believe.
These things are about the position of various species on the human family tree. If erectus is not a direct ancestor it means nothing to evolution. And nothing you have said is a falsification. Predictions have been amended when new evidence comes to light, but nothing so far has been falsified.
No it's not. One factor (brain size) was closer to humans than other apes, another factor (rate of infant maturity) was not. While these two things are linked, they are not indepentant of all other factors, therefore are not contradictory.
Explain why that is necessary, then we'll discuss. Remember, not all trait changes are grandual, and not all changes happen at the same speed.
Perhaps you can point out where any of this shows any fasification for human evolution, let alone evolution in general.
You have backed up nothing. You have not demonstrated erectus could not take care of its young, that it must be as hairy as an ape, that it has no human traits, that it is incapable of fire use etc. Inb the mean time, erectus continues to have a cranial capacity closer to humans than other apes, and females are equiped with a wide birth canal for big headed young, through their pelvis that is much more human than chimp or gorrila, and males were upright and athletic.
Also this:
is a complete lie. I have never said anything other than I work in IT.
[/quote]
Darls, you may like to look up what supporting ones assertions and big attitude looks like.
I have provided evidence of Erectus's IQ being around 50 and this is from evo researchers. This supports everything I said and asserted. The other huge clue is they were too stupid to engage in sophisticated speech. You may wiggle and deny, post a million posts and ignore the research provided as much as you want, you can hide your head in the sand as well and woffle on about sides, and still you will never refute my assertion and interpretation.
You on the other hand have provided nothing but denial and your own opinion.
In other words..YOU LOOSE ....BIG TIME.
Yeah right!
