Homo habilis is not human as per creation Research Soceity
Homo habilis has been included as fully human in the above article. But I found a contradicting information from a Creation Research Society article. It says Homo habilis is nothing more than a micro-adaptation of a common chimpanzee.
When a body mass model is used accounting for the facultative bipedalism of the australopithecines and Homo habilis, the data shows that they are not highly encephalized, and hence nothing more than a microevolutionary adaptation of the pan-troglodytes Here is a link to the original page. I believe Creation Research Society is a peer reviewed creationist journal. EvilFlyingMonkey 10:09, 28 April 2012 (PDT)
- No - in at least 4 separate places its made clear that habilis is not accepted as human - including the taxa list "This taxon is regarded as invalid; Being comprised of larger than average Australopithicines and smaller than average H. erectus fossils.?" --Ashcraft - (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2012 (PDT)
- Sorry, but it is put under Genus Homo - Fully Human. I think it was Malcolm Bowden who said so. The problem was CRS article did not say it is an invalid taxa. EvilFlyingMonkey 10:33, 28 April 2012 (PDT)
Java Man and Peeking man are not humans as per Malcolm Bowden
The article says Homo erects was fully human and Peking man and Java man have been listed under Homo erectus. But as per Bowden.EvilFlyingMonkey 11:18, 28 April 2012 (PDT)
I have earlier detailed why I believe the evidence indicates that Weidenreich's model of Peking Man, on which these opinions have been based, borders on fraud, and that Java Man and Peking Man were most likely large monkeys or apes of some kind. Eugene Dubois, the discoverer of Java Man, maintained during the last 15 years of his life that his Java Man was merely a giant gibbon.
- The above quote is actually from Duane Gish who does not use Bowden as a citation. Regardless, as noted in the Human evolution table from Bowden, he does identify "some" of the Peking Man fossil as apes and others as fully human. Regarding Gish' assertion about Dubois recanting on Java Man see the following from the Java Man article on CreationWiki.
- Some have claimed that Dubois renounced Java Man as a “missing link” and claimed it was just a giant gibbon. This claim is false, and is listed under Answers In Genesis's list of Arguments we think creationists should not use. Although Dubois was responsible for this misunderstanding, he was in fact attempting to counter arguments that Java Man was the same as other Homo erectus discoveries that were made in Java and China (Peking Man), which did not have the modern-looking human femur. To do this he emphasized what he believe were gibbon-like features. Steven Jay Gould quotes Dubois as having written in 1932: "Pithecanthropus was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the gibbons … I still believe, now more firmly than ever, that the Pithecanthropus of Trinil is the real “missing link”."
- Sorry for writing Bowden instead of Gish. I was a bit careless. As for Gish, I could not any reference of him saying that some Peeking men were human, creationist or non creationist. All of his statements refer to Peeking man in general. And Bowden himself claimed too that Peeking man was a monkey. And from the first sentense, it seems Gish reched his conclusion independently of Dubois. Thanks for giving the reference to writing of Gould that explains the claim about Dubois to be false. Can you please give references to those Peking man fossils Gish said were humans and specify those specimens? I could not find any. EvilFlyingMonkey 14:48, 28 April 2012 (PDT)
- I referenced Bowden - not Gish. "as noted in the Human evolution table from Bowden, he does identify "some" of the Peking Man fossil as apes and others as fully human." Citation can be found at the "Skull Classification" table in this article.
- The skulls found from upper caves have been classified as Archaic Homo sapiens by mainstream biologists. Peking man is the name given for Homo erectus found in that area.. I found a separate name Upper cave men for them. And as for the ten skeletons mentioned, they never existed.. If we consider the rest of the fossils, this page and those on Homo erectus and Peking man identify them as Homo erectus (including their skulls). But earlier in the page it is said Homo erectus is true human. So if Peking skulls (Homo erectus skulls) gets listed under ape fossils, this page will contradict itself. EvilFlyingMonkey 17:48, 28 April 2012 (PDT)