I would say that this is a profound difference between our approaches that
is unlikely to be bridged. To me if an account doesn't closely match the
event, it isn't true. You allow much more leeway.
Of whether we should or shouldn't consider H. erectus as human you wrote:
>I think that the label 'H. erectus' by archeaologists says it all. It
>is not only the 'pace of innovation' that separates sapiens from erectus.
>There are anatomical differences as well. But most important is this
>question: Is it more appropriate to regard H. erectus and habilis as the
>'intention of man' corresponding to Gen 1:26 than as Adam?
Perhaps you are unaware of how many anthropologists really think erectus
should be sunk into our species--Homo sapiens.
jan Jelinek
"'If the differential diagnosis between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens
cannot be other than by convention, and...this convention must be different
for different geographical regions, then the value of such a difference
should be critically considered...It is time to replace the paleontological
species with a biological one...Paleontological taxonomy cannot be in
contradiction with ...biological facts.'
"Milford addressed the Homo erectus issue as well. Working with Alan
Thorne, as well as friends and colleagues including Jan Jelinek and Zhang
Yinyun, he proposed that Homo erectus should be 'sunk,' submerged within
Homo sapiens." ~ Jan Jelinek, "Was Homo erectus alread Homo sapiens? Les
Processus de l'Hominisation, (CNRS International Colloquium, No. 599:85-89,
p. 88, cited by Milford Wolpoff and Rachael Caspari, Race and Human
Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p. 253
**
"Some important points follow from the fact that they are ancestral and
descendant species on a single lineage:
1. No species splits occurred when H. sapiens is said to originate from h.
erectus; there was no division of one species into two, and therefore no
species birthing.
2. No distinct anatomical boundary separates the ancestor H. erectus from
the descendant H. sapiens
3.No single worldwide set of criteria validly distinguishes so-called late
H. erectus from subsequent samples of early H. sapiens
4. Just about every way H. erectus differs from its australopithecine
ancestors also characterizes H. sapiens: virtually no features are unique
to H. erectus." ~ Milford Wolpoff and Rachael Caspari, Race and Human
Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p. 256
"I am increasingly of the view that all the material currently referred to
Homo erectus should in fact be placed within the species sapiens and be
distinguished from our modern form merely as an earlier stage in what seems
to have been a single evolving lineage." ~ Richard Leakey, "Recent Fossil
finds From East Africa," in J.R. Durant ed. Human Origins, (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1989) p 57
"I do not favour the idea that the modern form of our species had a single
geographical origin. The fossil evidence from widely separated parts of
the world indicates to me that Homo sapiens in the modern form arose from
populations of the more archaic form wherever it was established; and that,
similarly, these archaic forms arose from established populations of of
so-called Homo erectus. There are specific examples that cannot be brushed
aside, and I am sure that the apparent 'replacement' of Neanderthal by a
more advanced form is more a question of migration than of evolution: the
fossil record is not in my poinion adequate to discriminate truly at the
level of subspecies." ~ Richard Leakey, "Recent Fossil finds From East
Africa," in J.R. Durant ed. Human Origins, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989)
p 55
"I propose that we project Homo sapiens as a species that can be traced
from the present, back to a little over two million years. At certain
points in time, changes occur in the basic morphology, but these are better
expressed as stages of change rather than as separate species. I would
expect that the most plausible explanation of the evidence is that
selection for increased intelligence, the larger and more complex brain,
and the use of stone implements, occurred only once. Over time and under
pressure from stimuli that we do not yet recognize, the modern form of the
species emerged." ~ Richard Leakey, "Recent Fossil finds From East Africa,"
in J.R. Durant ed. Human Origins, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) p 57
"The ground-plan of the skull is the same from the earliest definite
members of the erectus group (e.g., 'Pithecanthropus IV' from Sangiran,
Java) to the modern races of H. sapiens. The main diagnostic criteria are
to be found in the curvature and capacity of the braincase, which are based
on allometric transpositions of the capacity. Since these features vary
among the recent races no less significantly than between different fossil
groups or between fossil and recent populations, it is impossible to draw a
line anywhere for species delimitation unless one intends also to split up
recent man into several species. Therefore it seems necessary to include
all these fossil and recent groups of man in the single species H. sapiens
(of which the oldest subspecies is H. sapiens modjokertensis." ~ Helmut
Hemmer, "A New View of the Evolution of Man," Current Anthropology, 10:2-3,
April-June, 1969, p. 179-180, p. 179
"With the exception of the capacity, the typical form of the erectus
skull depends on practically the same allometric correlations of its
different parts as the modern sapiens skull. The striking evolutionary
change in the shape of the human skull is mainly determined by simple
allometries, and there is no sharp break between the erectus group and the
modern races." ~ Helmut Hemmer, "A New View of the Evolution of Man,"
Current Anthropology, 10:2-3, April-June, 1969, p. 179-180, p. 179
**
erectus is sapiens
fetal brain growth
"Reaching the erectus type of braincase from the Australopithecus type,
however, was not possible by way of simple enlargement of the skull as a
whole." ~ Helmut Hemmer, "A New View of the Evolution of Man," Current
Anthropology, 10:2-3, April-June, 1969, p. 179-180, p. 180
**
erectus is sapiens
human birth pattern fetal brain growth
"The cause for this trasposition may perhaps be found in a change in
ontogenetic growth, as I have explained and discussed elsewhere. It seems
probable that the prolongation of embryonic growth beyond birth into the
first year of life found in H. sapiens was not present to the same extent
in Australopithecus and that this factor is responsible for the allometric
level of H. sapiens. A genetic change stimulating growth in that direction
would produce a normal australopithecine type at birth, to be transformed
into the Homo type, whith greater body size and greater brain capacity, by
way of different postnatal growth." ~ Helmut Hemmer, "A New View of the
Evolution of Man," Current Anthropology, 10:2-3, April-June, 1969, p.
179-180, p. 180
**
erectus is sapiens
"The logical consequence of such a situation is to lead us to consider the
different African, European and Asian finds of H. erectus type as Homo
sapiens erectus. With the increasing chronological knowledge, with better
dating and better understanding of functional morphology the picture
becomes clearer and clearer." ~ Jan Jelinek, "Homo erectus or Homo
Sapiens?" Recent Advances in Primatology 3:419-429, p. 427-428
p. 428
**
"Two other localities in Central Europe have yielded human skeletal
remains of Middle Pleistocene age. Bilzingsleben near Halle in the German
Democratic Republic and Vertesszollos in Hungary. The Vertesszollos
occipital bone is large and high and shows the possibly considerable
cranial capacity for the reconstructed braincase. Calculated not less than
1,400 ccm it lead A. Thoma to describe the find as Homo erectus seu
sapiens. The tools accompanying this find are classified as a small pebble
tool type assemblage. With Terra Amata locality near Nice, here in
Vertesszollos, the earliest use of fire in Europe was proved." ~ Jan
Jelinek, "Was Homo Erectus Already Homo Sapiens?" Colloques Internationaux
du C.N.R.S. No. 599--Les Processus de L'Hominisation, pp 85-89, p. 87
"if the so-called erectus evolutionary stage does not lead to the
extinction of this hominid line but to Homo sapiens, and if it is with a
different pattern of morphological changes and in a different chronological
schedule, but with the same results in species level (Homo sapiens), if the
limits between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens cannot be exactly situated
and if there is no genetical barrier between these types, then the value of
Homo erectus as a species is a problematic one. In such a case, it is time
to replace the palaeontological species by a biological one, because the
palaeontological species helped us at a times when there were not enough
biological facts at our disposal. As a biological discipline,
palaeontological taxonomy cannot be in contradiction with discovered
biological facts. Geographical re-consideration helps us to understand
local development from Homo sapiens erectus subspecies to later Homo
sapiens sapiens." ~ Jan Jelinek, "Was Homo Erectus Already Homo Sapiens?"
Colloques Internationaux du C.N.R.S. No. 599--Les Processus de
L'Hominisation, pp 85-89, p. 88
In conclusion, H. erectus does not say it all, as you suggest!
>
>Since H. erectus and habilis are ancestral (directly or indirectly) to
sapiens,
>I say yes. In contrast, you define what is 'human': religion, language ...
>and so forth, and claim that erectus enjoyed these features. However,
>the character of those features could have been very different than
>what we are familiar with.
'Could have been'. There is no evidence to support this statement. Their
altars are very much like those of primitive societies today. What exact
criteria do you suggest to differentiate them? Mere personal belief is not
enough.
That is why I brought up the ideas of Steven
>Mithen. My position is not ad hoc because it does not rely on 'defining
>what it is to be human'.
If you don't define what it means to be human, then how on earth can you
possibly exclude Homo erectus from the human race. A definition is needed
in order to do what you are wanting to do--exclude him.
>It relies on the classification of anthropologists.
Ernst Mayr wanted to include Australopithecus in the genus Homo.
Classifications are not carved stone objects. They are merely labels. To
treat them as you do, with theological significance goes way beyond what
the anthropologists mean by them.
>But the key, for me, is that the inventiveness, language, and religious
>indications of H. erectus points to the 'intention of man', in an
>ancestral species, rather than Adam of Gen 2.
We will have to disagree. It appears that you can't cite any real data to
support your concept that there religion, or language was less than ours.
And I can cite data that shows religion. Religion is the mark of man. No
animal engages in religion--except my cat who demands to be worshipped. :-)
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution