The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Homo erectus

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

sources

you have primarily used Lubenow, and some other creationists authors as primary reference. I could not find references to claims made by them and in the article to be made by mainstream biologists. Since I could not find any references to these claims by mainstream biologists. I will use the Wikipedia artcle on same subject fot mainstream point of view.

  • The discovery of Homo floresiensis in 2003 and of the recentness of its extinction has raised the possibility that numerous descendant species of Homo erectus may have existed in the islands of Southeast Asia and await fossil discovery (see Orang Pendek). Homo erectus soloensis, who lived on Java at least as late as about 50,000 years ago, would be one of them.

from Wikipedia article on homo florosiensis whose classification is disputed.

The species is thought to have survived on Flores at least until 12,000 years before present

So I need any reference to a claim by mainstream biologists saying specimens as old as 6000 years have been found out. I know that as per young earth creationist worldview earth is less than 10000 years so all the fossils should be younger than that. But I could not find any mainstream biologist speaking about 6000 year old fossils so I need a reference from them for that.

  • The African early Homo sapiens have been referred to as "African Neanderthals", and Asian Homo erectus fossils have been called "Asian Neanderthals"

On googling those two phrases African and Asian neanderthals, I could not find anything that said earlier homo sapiens had been called so. I need reference to any mainstream biologists using those phrases.

  • In fact some scholars treat Neanderthals as a population of late Homo erectus, describing their skulls as an "enlarged and developed version of the Homo erectus skull".

Who? give names and their works. I could not find any.

Just gave this review since this is main page article. May add further comments sometime.--EvilFlyingMonkey 15:00, 8 October 2011 (PDT)

The article cites Lubenow on page 119 for the claim about 6,000 year old fossils. I couldn't find any reference to that on page 119 of my copy. I thought I might have a different edition (there has been at least two), but mine is the 1992 edition cited by the article, so I can't explain the page discrepancy. However, I did find a table of some fossils on page 121 which includes mention of 6,000-year old fossils. They are the Mossgiel cranium and the Cossak skull, mandible, and limb fragments, all from Australia.
Lubenow's index does not mention "African neanderthals" nor "Asian Neanderthals", but I happened to come across him making this claim on p.139 of my copy. He doesn't provide a reference, but his exact wording is "The African archaic Homo sapiens fossils have been referred to in the past as "African Neanderthals." Many of the Asian Homo erectus fossils have been termed "Asian Neanderthals.". That is subtly different to the article in two respects, one being that the former term was "in the past", so likely hasn't been used in the era where a lot of stuff has been put on the Internet, and the other being that it has been used only of "many" of the Asian erectus fossils, not of them as a whole.
Lubenow's claim about the similarity of Neandertal and erectus fossils is on page 138 of my copy. He says:
Homo erectus and the Neandertals are very similar in cranial morphology. In the question period following a lecture by Neandertal authority Erik Trinkaus, I asked him, "Other than brain size, what are the differences in cranial morphology between Homo erectus and Neandertal?" His reply was, "Virtually none.".
(He gives a reference to the lecture.)
Philip J. Rayment 07:22, 10 October 2011 (PDT)
Corrected - the 2004 book edition was used as reference in the articles (p. 119 confirmed). --Ashcraft - (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2011 (PDT)
Can you give the name of those specimens?--EvilFlyingMonkey 10:44, 16 October 2011 (PDT)

I could not find anyone refering to Mossgeiel cranium and cossack skull[1] as Homo erectus. And things before internet came up is also there in the net. They would not be science but they are a part of history of science. The point is no such reference could be provided even if it was a layman's newspaper that referred so. And who refer Neanderthals as a population of Homo erectus even if they have similar cranial morphology?--EvilFlyingMonkey 11:16, 15 October 2011 (PDT)

Yes, there is much on the Internet from before there was an Internet. But there's a also a lot that isn't.
On page 138 of Lubenow 1992, he writes,
In an article on Homo erectus C. Loring Brace writes "...some scholars even treat Neandertal as late erectus."
(ellipsis in Lubenow), and provides a reference, C. Loring Brace, "Creationists and the Pithecanthropines," Creation/Evolution 19 (Winter 1986-1987), 23.
I've found that article on TalkOrigins[2]. Lubenow also gives two other examples of evolutionists saying that Neandertal and Erectus are similar.
I've found more: Lubenow 1992, p.132:
Although these robust Australian fossils are said in the literature to have Homo erectus features (...Mossgiel,154...) the evolutionist has waved his magic wand and called them Homo sapiens because of the very late date.
Reference 154 is to "Oakley et al., Catalogue of Fossil Hominids, part III, 200". What was that about no such references being able to be provided?
Philip J. Rayment 07:59, 17 October 2011 (PDT)
On Asian and African neanderthals, Lubenow makes an unreferenced claim. The claim is unreferenced in CreationWiki too. Lubenow is cited as a claim but his claim is unrefrenced as he had provided no reference. Just because we are not able to find reference does not mean they could be true. And creationists have claimed some of archaic Australian fossils to be Homo erectus. I could not find any mainstream biologists making those claim. As for the claim here is an article[3] how those fossils differ from those characteristics of Homo erectus as described by Lubenow. They have been used in this article as well. Here is skull of a homo erectus[4] and more photos[5]. They look quite different from the photos of Mossgeiel cranium but I am not an expert to tell. But the article had points made by Dr. Peter Brown who had studied those fossils and whom Lubenow and the article cites for similarity between them.--EvilFlyingMonkey 02:11, 18 October 2011 (PDT)
Your claim that "no such reference could be provided" was for the Mossgiel and Cossack fossils. I provided a reference for one of them.
"Just because we are not able to find reference does not mean they could be true." Not being able to find a reference does not mean that they are false either.
"They look quite different from the photos of Mossgeiel cranium ..." Your link was not to the Mossgiel cranium.
"I could not find any mainstream biologists making those claim." Are you implying that only mainstream biologists make acceptable references?
Philip J. Rayment 04:26, 18 October 2011 (PDT)
Ooo, sorry about the wrong link. I had lots of tabs open and I just copied that link by mistake. I wasnt going through all pages carefully. There is photo of them here[6]. As per mainstream biologists early Homo sapiens and Homo erectus had coexisted till 50000 years ago. And as per mainstream biologists speciated species and parent species can co exist. Technically it means no problem if Homo erctuses even exist now. And many biologists believe that Homo sapiens came from Homo eragaster in Africa and Homo erectus was a distinct species. And majority of biologists are quite unconcerned about creationism. They could say out if they think Mossgiel cranium was that of Homo erectus. That is the reason I said I could not see any mainstream biologists making this claim. I think I found the reference you were giving to Mossgiel cranium[7]. It says it to be a Intermediate between H. soloensis and Cohuna, N. W. G. Macintosh 1965. Well I think that was a book in 1965 and no modern biologists make those claim. Some biologists had earlier thought so but none does today. The catalogue may be new (1975) but still they could have copied reference from an old book by mistake. So it must have been a wrong assumption. And Cohuna fossil[8] is dated 9000 to 11000 years well above that of Mossgiel which is 6000. And as for Peter Brown who has been quoted for similarity between them to Homo erectus he himself explains how they differ from Homo erectus characteristics as described by Lubenow and in the article.[9] The claim that lacks reference may be true but according to CreationWiki policy everything should be referenced. Lubenow is used as reference but Lubenow's claim is unrefrerenced. This from Wikipedia's citation policy.[10]

Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Where you want to cite John Smith, but you've only read Paul Jones who cites Smith, write it like this (this formatting is just an example):

Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2.

However, if you have read Smith's book yourself, you may cite it directly; there is no need to give credit to any sources, search engines, websites, library catalogs, etc., that led you to that book.

I am not sure about CreationWiki policy but still there is no direct reference to the claim.--EvilFlyingMonkey 11:06, 19 October 2011 (PDT)
"...as per mainstream biologists speciated species and parent species can co exist." Except that this shows how flexible evolution is—it can explain anything—and therefore it is unscientific. Evolution is supposed to be how living things adapted to their environments, but when something doesn't adapt—despite its offspring adapting—evolution can somehow explain this too. So it can explain both adaptation and non-adaptation, with both being ad hoc explanations. See here for more.
"Technically it means no problem if Homo erctuses even exist now." And I guess, by the same reasoning (even though the timescale is quite different), there would be no problem if dinosaurs exist today. Despite several evolutionists telling me that finding one alive would (somehow) falsify evolution.
"And majority of biologists are quite unconcerned about creationism." Are you sure? There seem to be an awful lot of them who are critical of creationism.
"They could say out if they think Mossgiel cranium was that of Homo erectus. That is the reason I said I could not see any mainstream biologists making this claim." I'm not convinced that they could say that, as it would tend to support the creationary view.
"I think I found the reference you were giving to Mossgiel cranium". Lubenow's reference, but yes, I think you are right.
"...no modern biologists make those claim. Some biologists had earlier thought so but none does today" They can be fickle, can't they?
"The catalogue may be new (1975) but still they could have copied reference from an old book by mistake." I don't know where you got the 1975 date from, but in 1975 Machintosh was only ten years old. I don't see why it would have been a mistake.
"So it must have been a wrong assumption" Why?
"And Cohuna fossil[8] is dated 9000 to 11000 years well above that of Mossgiel which is 6000." So?
"And as for Peter Brown who has been quoted for similarity between them to Homo erectus he himself explains how they differ from Homo erectus characteristics as described by Lubenow and in the article." Are you claiming that Brown contradicts himself?
"The claim that lacks reference may be true but according to CreationWiki policy everything should be referenced. Lubenow is used as reference but Lubenow's claim is unrefrerenced. This from Wikipedia's citation policy." The article references Lubenow, so it is referenced. Wikipedia's policy says that an unseen source should not be directly cited, but doesn't say that a seen source should not be. Lubenow is cited. That fulfils the requirement.
Philip J. Rayment 06:24, 22 October 2011 (PDT)

Dr Brown

Someone has asked him about what has appeared in Lubenows book.[11]but i

I have not bothered to discuss the issue of whether H. erectus are deformed or not as from a biological perspective it is so obvious that they are not. For example while the Kow Swamp, Coobool and Nacurrie crania have flattened frontal bones the cranial vaults are high (unlike H. erectus), particularly those which are deformed (basion not preserved at Kow Swamp but mean basion-bregma at Coobool 141 mm, range 134-153). Curvature of the parietals (particularly those which are deformed) is MUCH greater than H. erectus and the occipitals are of modern Aboriginal morphology and not sharply angled at the torus like in H. erectus. Maximum cranial breadth is found high on the parietals, supraorbital region is NOTHING like H. erectus, particularly laterally, bone in the basal part of the vault is not thickened, etc, etc. All of the features which distinguish modern Aboriginal crania from H. erectus work with terminal Pleistocene Australian crania as well. Just happens that late Pleistocene Australians were about 8% larger and more robust than their contemporaries and a few of them had their heads deformed.

Dr Brown says the above. And Xujiayao is in China which is way away from Australia or aborginals. I could not find about Dali. And there was no information on who Dr. Peter Brown was in the article. Nothing on Lubenow too. When quoting some authority it would be to tell who they are in the article like Dr. Peter Brown, an Australian evolutionary biologist, Lubenow a creation scientist. --EvilFlyingMonkey 16:09, 8 October 2011 (PDT)
TO does very briefly mention who Dr. Brown is, although admittedly there's not much detail. And I've just edited this article to include a link to Lubenow's article, although it too is lacking in much detail. Philip J. Rayment 07:25, 10 October 2011 (PDT)
The page still just contain Brown summarizes the implications of the findings, it still does not contain his full name or it is difficult to find out who he is. It could not even be known if he is creationist or mainstream biologist and what authority he has to say on this matter. It is difficult to find out who he is from the article. The article should be edited so the readers will be able to find out further.--EvilFlyingMonkey 11:06, 19 October 2011 (PDT)
There's nothing unusual about simply referring to an author without providing details on who he is. Philip J. Rayment 06:31, 22 October 2011 (PDT)