Homo erectus

[Jwanon]

I've made a lot of research concerning "archaic humans". 

 

Homo erectus ( aka homo ergaster aka homo aka homo rudolfensis aka homo habilis ) are what scholars call the very ancient skeletal remains of humanoids. Most are found in the Middle East and Africa, and interrestingly a large collection have been found in the Caucasus, which is the first area that the post-flood people settled in.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmanisi_hominins

 

Among anthropologists, they consider homo erectus to be a separate species of hominid, an ancestor of modern humans (homo sapiens) and a link between us and apes like the Australopithecus. 

However, from the information I have been reading about, I believe that homo erectus is no separate species at all. It definitely is human. Scholars base their conclusion on the slight difference between erectus skull and sapiens skull, but that is very misleading.

 

For starters, there is no single homo sapiens skull that is alike. The shape of the skull varies depending on the race. European skulls share traits that Aboriginal skulls do not have for example. 

 

I believe that homo erectus was simply the first physionomy of mankind. I imagine that Adam, Eve, Noah and others had a skull shape similar to it. When mankind spread around the world, they eventually adapted to their environment which shaped their physical appearance, and as such it created a diversity in skull shapes.

 

So not at all proof that man descended from monkeys !

[Brother_Bliss]

3 hours ago, Jwanon said:

However, from the information I have been reading about, I believe that homo erectus is no separate species at all. It definitely is human. Scholars base their conclusion on the slight difference between erectus skull and sapiens skull, but that is very misleading.

 

For starters, there is no single homo sapiens skull that is alike. The shape of the skull varies depending on the race. European skulls share traits that Aboriginal skulls do not have for example. 

 

I believe that homo erectus was simply the first physionomy of mankind. I imagine that Adam, Eve, Noah and others had a skull shape similar to it. When mankind spread around the world, they eventually adapted to their environment which shaped their physical appearance, and as such it created a diversity in skull shapes.

 

I would say that your conclusions have merit. By way of comparison, can you guess which animals these skulls are from?

 

 

They are actually all from the same genus and species known as canis familiaris. Also known as a dog. 

 

 

 

[hatcheckgirl]

11 hours ago, Jwanon said:

believe that homo erectus was simply the first physionomy of mankind. I imagine that Adam, Eve, Noah and others had a skull shape similar to it. When mankind spread around the world, they eventually adapted to their environment which shaped their physical appearance, and as such it created a diversity in skull shapes.

 

Quote

Another fossil type is called Homo erectus—upright man. Its brain size and shape do fall into the lower range of modern man’s. Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica observed that “the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of H[omo] sapiens.”⁠50 However, it is unclear whether it was human or not. If so, then it was merely a branch of the human family and died off.

That was from our older publication Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? chp 7 p 89 par 33.

 

Another source I found was in The New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History p 18. It mentions that “man had been present in Europe for at least half a million years by this time, originally in the form of Homo Erectus, then, from some time around the start of the last Ice Age, as something reasonably close to modern man, Homo Sapiens”.

 

Regarding Neanderthal man, though started as a separate classification, was later “reclassified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (I.e. a variety of modern man)…Recently the pendulum has swung back again…and the anthropologists have begun referring him as Homo neaderthalensis again”.

 

Keep in mind the dating is out, but it is interesting that these previously separate types of “ancestor” to man have now been relegated to a “variety” of man.

 

[Michał]

15 hours ago, Jwanon said:

So not at all proof that man descended from monkeys !

This is true story:

 

Once two men (interested ones?) came to our hall for the meeting. I couldn’t take my eyes from them. They looked exactly like apes (except for the hair/fur), they were more apelike than characters from “Planet of the apes”! They didn’t come the second time though. It was before built in cameras in phones so I didn’t even think of taking a selfie with them. 
 

Btw, @Jwanon, Im starting to have an interest in the issue of man’s paleontology. Could you share roñé starting points?

[Jwanon]

What is roñé ?

[carlos]

4 hours ago, Jwanon said:

What is roñé ?

I think he meant some but the keyboard corrector did its thing.

[Jwanon]

Oh okay

 

Well homo erectus type remains are all buried deeper than "modern" phenotypes. It seems they didn't travel far into Asia, and there are no trace of them in America. I imagine that by the time they travelled from Babel to these other places that the homo erectus phenotype has dissapeared. 

 

They were undoubtedly human begause they were able to make fire (evidently to warm themselves and to cook meat), produced stone tools and built huts. There is no evidence of advanced culture from homo erectus (at least in Africa), I suppose because their most important goal was to survive. 

[Michał]

1 hour ago, carlos said:

I think he meant some but the keyboard corrector did its thing.

Yeah, I don’t even know how that weird word came about. Thanks Carlos. 

[Michał]

29 minutes ago, Jwanon said:

Oh okay

 

Well homo erectus type remains are all buried deeper than "modern" phenotypes. It seems they didn't travel far into Asia, and there are no trace of them in America. I imagine that by the time they travelled from Babel to these other places that the homo erectus phenotype has dissapeared. 

 

They were undoubtedly human begause they were able to make fire (evidently to warm themselves and to cook meat), produced stone tools and built huts. There is no evidence of advanced culture from homo erectus (at least in Africa), I suppose because their most important goal was to survive. 

Very impressive!

How do you do research? What sources do you use? How can one get access to raw paleontology data?

[hatcheckgirl]

I’m not understanding the dating on that graph. It seems only 250 years from Homo erectus to homo sapien? I’m I seeing that right?

[Jwanon]

On 8/15/2022 at 9:20 PM, Michał said:

Very impressive!

How do you do research? What sources do you use? How can one get access to raw paleontology data?

Thanks, I used different sources, I can't remember which ones exactly.

I know I've watched videos from National Geographic and PBS Aeons

 

On 8/15/2022 at 11:17 PM, hatcheckgirl said:

I’m not understanding the dating on that graph. It seems only 250 years from Homo erectus to homo sapien? I’m I seeing that right?

Seems like it

[Forward you Witnesses]

I've made a lot of research concerning "archaic humans". 
 
Homo erectus ( aka homo ergaster aka homo aka homo rudolfensis aka homo habilis ) are what scholars call the very ancient skeletal remains of humanoids. Most are found in the Middle East and Africa, and interrestingly a large collection have been found in the Caucasus, which is the first area that the post-flood people settled in.
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmanisi_hominins
 
Among anthropologists, they consider homo erectus to be a separate species of hominid, an ancestor of modern humans (homo sapiens) and a link between us and apes like the Australopithecus. 
However, from the information I have been reading about, I believe that homo erectus is no separate species at all. It definitely is human. Scholars base their conclusion on the slight difference between erectus skull and sapiens skull, but that is very misleading.
 
For starters, there is no single homo sapiens skull that is alike. The shape of the skull varies depending on the race. European skulls share traits that Aboriginal skulls do not have for example. 
 
I believe that homo erectus was simply the first physionomy of mankind. I imagine that Adam, Eve, Noah and others had a skull shape similar to it. When mankind spread around the world, they eventually adapted to their environment which shaped their physical appearance, and as such it created a diversity in skull shapes.
 
So not at all proof that man descended from monkeys !

Yea, and if people say that they have been carbon dated to like 100,000 years ago. Ask them what happens when such skeletons have been submerged in water. They decay at a much higher rate, therefore if you where to carbon date it afterwards it would appear older.

Now what event do we know of that involved water, a lot of water, covering the entire earth?

Side note - according to scientists there is a large period in human history we don’t have any data from, but if you where to take some carbon based skeleton and submerge it for 40 days. And then you carbon date it, it tells us the exact amount of time that (according to scientists) is missing from human history!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Forward you Witnesses]

Yea, and if people say that they have been carbon dated to like 100,000 years ago. Ask them what happens when such skeletons have been submerged in water. They decay at a much higher rate, therefore if you where to carbon date it afterwards it would appear older.

Now what event do we know of that involved water, a lot of water, covering the entire earth?

Side note - according to scientists there is a large period in human history we don’t have any data from, but if you where to take some carbon based skeleton and submerge it for 40 days. And then you carbon date it, it tells us the exact amount of time that (according to scientists) is missing from human history!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apologies I am wrong, it’s not submersion in water that speeds it up, (in fact it slows it down). In fact the topic I am talking about is the freshwater reservoir effect. In this effect, people who have a diet heavily based on fresh water (such as fish) would have increased the rate of decay of their skeletons. If you want to explore more information check out an actual legit source rather than me. Lol

https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2050-7445-1-24


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk