110,311
edits
Homo erectus: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
{{cquote|My own conclusion is that ''Homo erectus'' and Neandertal are actually the same: ''Homo erectus'' is the lower end, with regard to size, of a continuum that includes ''Homo erectus'', early ''Homo sapiens'', and Neandertal. The range of cranial capacities for fossil humans is in line with the range of cranial capacities for modern humans.<ref>Lubenow p. 127</ref>}} | {{cquote|My own conclusion is that ''Homo erectus'' and Neandertal are actually the same: ''Homo erectus'' is the lower end, with regard to size, of a continuum that includes ''Homo erectus'', early ''Homo sapiens'', and Neandertal. The range of cranial capacities for fossil humans is in line with the range of cranial capacities for modern humans.<ref>Lubenow p. 127</ref>}} | ||
This tremendous similarity between the various ancient human [[fossils]] causes considerable difficulty for the evolutionist who attempts to place the discoveries in various categories. The African early ''Homo sapiens'' have been referred to as "African Neanderthals", and Asian ''Homo erectus'' fossils have been called "Asian Neanderthals". In fact some scholars treat Neaderthals as a population of late ''Homo erectus'', describing their skulls as an "''enlarged and developed version of the ''Homo erectus'' skull''". <ref | This tremendous similarity between the various ancient human [[fossils]] causes considerable difficulty for the evolutionist who attempts to place the discoveries in various categories. The African early ''Homo sapiens'' have been referred to as "African Neanderthals", and Asian ''Homo erectus'' fossils have been called "Asian Neanderthals". In fact some scholars treat Neaderthals as a population of late ''Homo erectus'', describing their skulls as an "''enlarged and developed version of the ''Homo erectus'' skull''".<ref name=lubenow128/> Jerome Cybulski (National Museum of Man, Ottawa) speaks to the difficulties in characterizing ''H. erectus'' on morphological grounds: | ||
{{cquote|Indeed, one may well wonder whether agreement will ever be reached as to which fossils do belong to or represent the taxon, and on what morphological-cum-phyologenetic grounds fossil hominids are or are not to be regarded as Homo erectus''.<ref | {{cquote|Indeed, one may well wonder whether agreement will ever be reached as to which fossils do belong to or represent the taxon, and on what morphological-cum-phyologenetic grounds fossil hominids are or are not to be regarded as Homo erectus''.<ref name=lubenow128/>}} | ||
=== Inappropriate timeframe === | === Inappropriate timeframe === | ||
