|
|
Homo erectus: racial variants of Homo sapiens?
A Pagano (apagano@fast.net)
Wed, 08 Jan 1997 20:25:50 -0500
The following is posted on behalf of David Buckna <dabuckna@awinc.com>:
Today evolution survives, not so much as a theory of science, but as a
philosophical necessity. Good science is always tentative and
self-correcting, but this never really happens in the case of evolution.
Regardless of the scientific data, the idea of evolution as a valid
concept
is not open to debate. Students are allowed to ask "HOW did evolution
occur?", but never "DID evolution occur?". Which is a more objective
question: "What were the ape-like creatures that led to man?" or "_Did_
man
evolve from ape-like creatures?"
On December 9 archeologist and paleo-anthropologist Mary Leakey died at
age
83. Although Leakey was convinced that man had evolved from ape-like
ancestors, she was equally convinced that scientists will never be able
to
prove a particular scenario of human evolution. Three months before her
death, she said in an interview: "All these trees of life with their
branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." Associated Press
(AP)
Dec. 10, 1996.
With Leakey's words still ringing in my ears, _The New York Times_
reported
three days later that scientists had re-examined two major fossil sites
in Java,
and found that Homo erectus may have lived there as recently as "27,000
years ago". (December 13, P.A1) This dating analysis, conducted by
McMaster
University geologists Henry Schwarcz and Jack Rink, will serve to cast
further doubt on the so-called evidence for human evolution. Why? If it
can
be shown that Homo erectus lived at the same time as modern man, Homo
erectus may be no more than racial variants of Homo sapiens. That is
what
creationists such as Duane Gish ("Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!",
Master Books, 1995) have been saying for decades.
>From Maclean's magazine (Canada's weekly newsmagazine):
***
That would place him [Java Man] in the era of modern humans---and argue
against an ancestral relationship."If these dates are right," said
Philip
Rightmire, an anthropologist at the State University of New York at
Binghamton, "the multiregionalists will have to do some fast
thinking."...The new findings also challenge the rival Out of Africa
theory. That view holds that modern humans emerged in Africa as recently
as
150,000 years ago and spread around the globe, driving Homo erectus into
extinction---well before the era pointed to by the new
finding.(Maclean's,
science section,"The origins of man", Dec. 23, p. 69)
***
Marvin Lubenow has an M.S.in anthropology and zoology from Eastern
Michigan
University, and teaches at the Institute for Creation Research in El
Cajon,
California. He is also the author of "Bones of Contention: A Creationist
Assessment of Human Fossils", Baker Book House, 1993. According to
Lubenow,
from the neck down, the differences between Homo erectus and modern
humans
are minor. (Erectus skeletons are usually smaller than moderns, but not
always.) And while Homo erectus tended to have thicker skulls and
smaller
brains, we now know the human brain's organization is such that small
size
does not affect intelligence (eg. some Australian aboriginees). In fact,
the actual range in humans is said to be a remarkable 700 to 2200 cubic
centimetres. Lubenow states that other characteristics of Homo erectus
skulls can be accounted for by poor diet and disease (especially
rickets),inbreeding, and harsh living conditions, and that most,if not
all,
of these skull-shape characteristics can still be found within the
current
human population.
Related articles:
<http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-229.htm>
<http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-244.htm>
<http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-282.htm>
<http://www.christiananswers.net/aig/s95bones.html>
David Buckna
<dabuckna@awinc.com>
|