Hominids - Which Are Human, Which Are Not

hmmm, seems that even Helen does not want to tackle this question.

 

Well, I’m not an anthropologists, but the answer I’m gonna give, you probably will not like. But later tomorrow or sometime this weekend I will try to entertain your question after a little bias research. I have been interested, since my son will be starting school within the next few years, I will like to be able to explain to him why a monkey isn’t his great, great, great etc. granddad.

It all started in Genesis (awww…there’s that dreaded word again), Genesis 11 with the Tower of Babel; were our Lord God confused the language and scattered them all about the face of the earth. So I believe that since the Lord confused their languages they could only communicate with those within their families; these homo (?) were the product of interbreeding within each tribe or family. Until the gene pool had time to settle out we were going to see some birth defects and so forth.

Now secular science will not entertain this possibility b/c it deals will the Bible and a Creator who will judge them.

 

Or here is another interesting explaination:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-323.htm

Here is the part most interesting to me:

 

Hmm... people who don't speak the same language, won't interbreed?

You've had a very sheltered life.

 

“The evidence most often sighted to show that an ape is in the process of evolving into man is the shape and cranial capacity of the skull. The average for the human is 1,350 cc for a woman and 1,500 cc for a man. The normal range is from 830cc (australian aborigines) to the largest brain ever recorded, about 2,800 cc. There is virtually no known correlation between intelligence and brain size among humans in this normal range. By comparison, modern apes have a brain capacity of 500cc.” David N. Menton, Ph.D.

Homo Habilis:

A growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists is that Homo Habilis actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

Richard Leakey asked for funding from the National Geographic Society to support his search. He was told basically he better not come back empty handed. Upon examining the skull it was considered typically human. And then there's the “dating” issue….

“"Homo habilis is an empty taxon inadequately proposed and should be formally sunk". -C. Loring Brace

Homo Erectus:

Many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head and brain size. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

Neanderthal Man:

His brain capacity is 1,600 cc some 200 cc larger than mans. Evolutionists are still trying to reconstruct him to move him out of the Homo sapiens classification.

Scientific Evidence For the Origin of Man

[ June 26, 2003, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: john6:63 ]

 

In the scenario I presented, if two families (I was talking blood related. I figured this would be obvious) who don’t speak the same language will not interbreed, b/c it’s not considered interbreeding, they're from two different families.

 

This deals with linguistic differences (and, if you stretch the story a bit, cultural differences), but not anthropological differences. I think using the T of B story to explain such differences would be using the story for a purpose it wasn't intended.

No disrespect intended, just a difference of opinion on the subject.

 

Um, you're not thinking of inbreeding, are you?

 

Not quite. Homo habilis was originally thought to be the ancestor to all later Homo. In a neat, linear progression, later species emerged resulting in what we call modern humans. Because of later finds, this is no longer accepted to be the case. Currently, all available evidence points to Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis existing at the same time, but dying out prior to the rise of Homo ergaster. Homo ergaster is not necessarily thought to have arisen from either of these two older species of Homo. (interesting sidenote: Fossils of male and females of adult age show that the females were considerably smaller than the males, whereas modern humans have a female size that is only slightly smaller than males).

The average brain size of Homo erectus, while on the smaller side of Homo sapien, is not on average the same as brains today. On average, the Homo erectus brains are significantly smaller. The species Homo erectus is thought to have diverged from Homo ergaster populations roughly 1.6 million years ago. We know from the fossil record that Home erectus did not die out until 50,000 years ago, when its population in Asia dwindled. It would have been alive at the same time as later Homo sapien and Homo neanderthalensis.

There is no dispute regarding brain size. Homo neanderthalensis buried their dead and even created artwork. Quite probably, they had linguistic skills, though there's no evidence of any developed written language. What differentiates Homo neanderthalensis is not the brain, but the body. Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar anatomically (so similar that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and early 80's, but further study has shown that the body differences were significant enough to warrant separate classification). The body of the Neanderthals were able to withstand very specific climates, but were not able to withstand climate change. In addition, the Homo Sapien bodies were taller, thinner, and more agile than Neanderthal bodies. Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens occupied the same time, and often the same space. It's quite possible that Homo Sapien may simply have out competed Neanderthals, but it's more likely that climate change let to the dwindle of Neanderthals and the rise of Homo Sapiens. Fossil evidence in Europe shows climate change that coincides with the gradual decline in Neanderthals and the gradual increase in Cro Magnon (Homo sapien) populations.

In all, the fossil record for Neanderthals is significantly better than for earlier human species. One reason for this is that Neanderthal fossils are relatively young compared to other early human species, and fossils decay over time. But another very important factor is the purposeful burial of their dead. Many Neanderthal sites include the remains of individuals who were deliberately placed in graves dug into the earth. Some of these burials show evidence that may indicate that these graves were adorned with offerings (such as flowers). This cultural advance, which represents an awareness and recognition of life and death, may have first been practiced by the Neanderthals.

 

Yeah, that’s the word I was looking for! Should’ve known that a Texan would know the difference.