110,311
edits
Homo erectus: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
→Inappropriate timeframe
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
In the 1980s paleontologists viewed ''Homo erectus'' as living between 400,000 and 1.5 million years ago (mya), but since that time at least 140 fossils have been found that are younger than this age-range and 32 fossils that date to be older. Garniss H. Curtis at the University of California, Berkeley dated the oldest fossils at Java (where [[Java Man]] was found) at 1.81 Mya, and the Java Solo Ngandong beds as being only 27,000 years old. <ref>Lubenow, p. 117</ref> There are at least 78 ''Homo erectus'' fossils that have now been dated more recently than 30,000, the youngest yet discovered only 6000 years old. <ref name=lubenow119>Lubenow, p. 119</ref> | In the 1980s paleontologists viewed ''Homo erectus'' as living between 400,000 and 1.5 million years ago (mya), but since that time at least 140 fossils have been found that are younger than this age-range and 32 fossils that date to be older. Garniss H. Curtis at the University of California, Berkeley dated the oldest fossils at Java (where [[Java Man]] was found) at 1.81 Mya, and the Java Solo Ngandong beds as being only 27,000 years old. <ref>Lubenow, p. 117</ref> There are at least 78 ''Homo erectus'' fossils that have now been dated more recently than 30,000, the youngest yet discovered only 6000 years old. <ref name=lubenow119>Lubenow, p. 119</ref> | ||
The extensive timeframe of ''Homo erectus'' fossils overlaps other hominids so extensively that it should void any attempt to claim an evolutionary sequence. For example, ''Homo erectus'' is almost universally held to have evolved from ''[[Homo habilis]]'' despite the fact that their fossils appear at roughly the same time (the oldest ''H. erectus'' fossil is dated at 1.95 mya and the oldest ''H. habilis'' fossil dated at just over 2.0 mya). Furthermore, they continued to coexists throughout the entire 500,000 year span when ''Homo habilis'' is said to have lived.<ref name=lubenow119/> Such inconsistencies between the [[theory of evolution]] and the [[fossil]] evidence are often concealed. Marvin Lubenow warns in his book, [[Bones of Contention]], about the way that evolutionists present the relationship between ''Homo habilis'' and ''Homo erectus''.. | The extensive timeframe of ''Homo erectus'' fossils overlaps other hominids so extensively that it should void any attempt to claim an evolutionary sequence. For example, ''Homo erectus'' is almost universally held to have evolved from ''[[Homo habilis]]'' despite the fact that their fossils appear at roughly the same time (the oldest ''H. erectus'' fossil is dated at 1.95 mya and the oldest ''H. habilis'' fossil dated at just over 2.0 mya). Furthermore, they continued to coexists throughout the entire 500,000 year span when ''Homo habilis'' is said to have lived.<ref name=lubenow119/> Such inconsistencies between the [[theory of evolution]] and the [[fossil]] evidence are often concealed. Marvin Lubenow warns in his book, ''[[Bones of Contention]]'', about the way that evolutionists present the relationship between ''Homo habilis'' and ''Homo erectus''.. | ||
{{cquote|Terms like ''Homo erectus'' and ''Homo habilis'' are convenient terms to use in reference to groups of fossil material. But it is obvious that when evolutionists give dates for ''Homo erectus'' that do not fit the fossil material, or when they say that ''Homo habilis'' evolved into ''Homo erectus'', contrary to what the fossil material shows, they are using those terms in a manipulative manner without regard for the fossil material in those categories. It is not unusual in evolutionary charts to show ''Homo habilis'' somewhat below ''Homo erectus'', implying that ''Homo habilis'' is earlier in time.<ref>Lubenow, pp. 120-121</ref>}} | {{cquote|Terms like ''Homo erectus'' and ''Homo habilis'' are convenient terms to use in reference to groups of fossil material. But it is obvious that when evolutionists give dates for ''Homo erectus'' that do not fit the fossil material, or when they say that ''Homo habilis'' evolved into ''Homo erectus'', contrary to what the fossil material shows, they are using those terms in a manipulative manner without regard for the fossil material in those categories. It is not unusual in evolutionary charts to show ''Homo habilis'' somewhat below ''Homo erectus'', implying that ''Homo habilis'' is earlier in time.<ref>Lubenow, pp. 120-121</ref>}} | ||
