[_ Old Earth _] Cup of Java anyone?

[brother Paul]

Ever see the impressionable image they made for Nebraska Pig for textbook and media presentations? Did you ever see a more human looking pig in your life?

Well Java man is another mythological assumption-based missing link. Admittedly, YEC creationist sites draw all sorts of erroneous conclusions even claiming an alleged “deathbed” confession. Don’t they realize that this brings shame to the name? Just walk in the truth whatever it is. Know the truth and the TRUTH shall set you free.

On the other hand, EB propaganda sites are equally dishonest and draw all sorts of erroneous associations with other creatures found elsewhere that are anthropologically very distinct (forensically speaking). So the first truth we must consider is that even Dubois believed that “Pithecanthropus [Java Man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the gibbons.”

The skull cap and molars were clearly from some variety of early ape but the final Dubois construction was a bit contrived. Here is why! The skull cap and molars (totally ape) were found on one occasion, and then later, about 50 feet away (still in level D however), they found the femur (equal to any human though slightly thicker) and instead of seeing it as possible evidence of early HUMANS existing at the same time as this other creature (which would be against the conclusion that would get funded) they fit the two unrelated finds into the theory (typical of bad science), and so erroneously insisted they belonged to the same creature and presented it as proof of an ape-like creature that was upright and bi-pedal like a human (remember poor Ota).

This find was eventually associated with the Peking Man find (where to perpetuate the theory they again mixed evidence of early humans with evidence of apes) which was re-interpreted to force fit the data into the pedagogues “acceptable” theory. You aren’t supposed to know this part, but did you know Dubois also had two human skulls known as the Wadjak skulls found at the site? Dubois never hid the fact but he never really brought them to light either. Some YECs claim he kept them hidden and some EBs have recently re-interpreted these to be Erectus skulls (he actually tried to claim they were Neanderthal but others said Human) but they had to re-interpret them because the mythos aspect would have been exposed.

All evidence of humans existing prior to 195,000 bce MUST BE re-interpreted as something other or else re-combined with other things found near it (or sometimes from across the world) to make it appear non-human and partly ape.

Actually, when Ralph von Koenigswald (a German Paleontologist) found what turned out to be several early human fossils at the site of Peking Ape he found himself having a hard time receiving funding for his dig and was only able to continue there a short time after. However, he was funded for later digs elsewhere. In fact he made several other important discoveries in Java including those items found in Sangiran where he found a definitely human skull cap from the same time period as Dubois’ Java man. But you will not study this in public school or in most Universities because this information has been intentionally selectively excluded (“selective exclusion” is a technique of engineering opinion in thought control).

The Mojokerto child skull cap (found by von Koenigswald later still) was also clearly human (he named it Pithecanthropus modjokertensis), but Dubois (the pedagoguery’s current hero) protested that Pithecanthropus was not a human but an "ape-man" (do you see how the theory was used to interpret the data? Come on now….you know that is bad science)….see Theunissen, Bert (Jan 1, 1989), Eugène Dubois and the Ape-Man from Java: The History of the First `Missing Link' and Its Discoverer, (Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 161–162).

Many other early human fossils were discovered (see “Sangiran Early Man Site”…sorry I forget the details…but it displayed by UNESCO) but the information has been repressed unless you dig for it, and the results contrary to the mantra are always “selectively excluded” from most pro-EB peer Journals (again, discarding contrary evidence is indoctrination not science). Among the skulls there we have ape skulls and human skulls. are As a result of the facts of the “Sangiran Early Man Site” display as well as the work of other scientists, Time Magazine in the Nov. 30, 1953 issue (p. 83) footnoted that "Other early humans are heavily documented by multiple finds of their bones.” But you never heard that opinion (also so solidly based on scientific fact) presented along with the propaganda in your so-called education, did you? Why? Because it explodes the myth that no humans existed that far back which is an assumption one must swallow whole to be able to re-interpret everything to make Darwin’s theory seem legit! It’s the Geobbels principle (originally noted by William James) which states if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it the masses will believe it is true.

But to complete the sale of the theory (avoiding the contrary data), and to imprint the innocently inquiring minds of generations (an important part of any successful propaganda plan) they had to have some artist make up an image that would be associated with the imposed dogma so they came up with another totally imaginary contrived ape and man mix (the children of course believed it and still do….I certainly did) which looks exactly like every fictional caveman I ever saw in a school book…

I-yill B-Bach with more Ahnuld later...going for my second cup....

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

checkable sources and specific claims would show a stronger case. I'm guessing the vagueness is unintentional, but it gives the impression of evasiveness.

DuBois, far from being the "current hero" of science, was known to have identified H. erectus as a form of giant gibbon.

Gibbon:

H. erectus:

modern Human:

Which of these things are not like the others?

As you see, most of the differences between H. erectus and H. sapiens is in the structure of the skull; the postcranial skeletons of those two are very similar. This is why Piltdown, was such an embarrassment until evolutionists debunked it; a large brain should have (according to evolutionary theory) have evolved after the rest of the skeleton.

And as you see, it did.

 

[brother Paul]

In the middle photo (with a little doctoring t the composite skeleton) they attached a human jaw with ape skull portions. Dubois (at the time I was referring to) was a current hero among the Darwinian pedagogues and also he only said it was like a Gibbon (probably of a sub-genus).

I did not bring up PD because we know that was an intentionally planted trick (Conan Doyle was in on that one) to fool some over zealous Darwinian, Charles Dawson.

Unfortunately (or conveniently if you ask me) all the original specimens of Peking Man (human and ape-kind) went missing...

 

[brother Paul]

Many of my notes written down years ago were taken from mainly two sources one was G. H. R. von Koenigswald's, "Evolution of Man." University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor Paperback Series, Revised edition, 1976, translated by Arnold J. Pomerans and Swisher, Curtis, and Lewin's, Java Man: How Two Geologists Changed Our Understanding of Human Evolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

The general assessment was made by myself. There are many examples of bones and other evidence found by many to be quite human were mixed with other near by ape-kind bones calling them something or other...but these could just as easily and just as appropriately been interpreted as two creatures (but to admit human would have questioned the dogma and caused an earlier dating for humans....the Darwinian pedagoguery really could not have that). In some of the Java sites we found indications of burial processes and cooking (which means they knew how to use fire). In my opinion, if we just let the data speak, humans can be shown as early as 350 to 500,000 bce.

The truth is that if we just had let all the data rule the theory there would be no need to make up so many hodge podges. As pointed out in the other thread the evidence is just as strong for early humans at the Olduvia gorge (but it did no fit the preconceived conclusion) as well. Or perhaps in the future the dog family did make and use the functional toilet a football field away (lol).

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

In the middle photo (with a little doctoring t the composite skeleton) they attached a human jaw with ape skull portions.

No, we know that old story is false. There have been a good number of H. erectus fossils found, and they are as this one is.

Dubois (at the time I was referring to) was a current hero among the Darwinian pedagogues

No. He was pretty much always on the outside, criticized by other scientists.

Dubois paid a steep price for his find. He and his wife lost a child to tropical fever, and Dubois himself narrowly escaped death more than once, from malaria, tigers, and collapsing cave walls. Upon returning to Europe, he took an unprestigious university appointment, and concluded that his greatest achievement would always be finding Java Man. So he was cruelly disappointed when, though some scientists greeted his finds enthusiastically, others dismissed them as ape remains, primitive human remains, or a jumble of fossils from separate individuals.
http://www.strangescience.net/dubois.htm

Unfortunately (or conveniently if you ask me) all the original specimens of Peking Man (human and ape-kind) went missing...

Doesn't matter. There are dozens of examples of H. erectus in evidence, now.

 

[brother Paul]

I think many fossils of Erectus are just humans. Albeit an early “Variety” of human, perhaps even one that died off. The eye socket and brow ridge regions are one such clue. On some of the skulls it is more pronounced on others less. Other fossils classified as Erectus are a variety of ape (long arms, bridgeless nose, flat small brain casings, etc.), and still others are pieced together mixtures of unrelated remains. In the human relatives, emerging genetic possibilities eventually favored the variety we call modern human (anatomically). Probably much to your surprise I am not alone in this theory (though in the minority). Some in the past have classed some of the first type to be quite human, like v.K. in my former post.


Of the five skulls found in Dmanisi, Georgia, two actually look quite human (as any modern) while the other three appear more than likely ape. These fossils are generally associated with others from Africa and Asia which if true could pose a problem for the “Regional Continuity” theory (though it is totally possible that in some species, and varieties within them, there is global continuity, while in others only a regional continuity…it does not HAVE TO be one OR the other).


http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/17/world/europe/ancient-skull-human-evolution/


The editors of Archaeology Info: the meeting place of Arch and Evo, say “Those who see erectusas a modern human ancestor, either see the Asian specimens as a dead-end side branch, or see all the ergaster, heidelbergensis, and erectus specimens as belonging to Homo sapiens. This view has some validity in that these species are usually considered “chronospecies” due to anagenesis.” Some “researchers do not support the concept of anagenesis as a valid mechanism of speciation, since there is a “fuzzy” area where the transition between species occurs, whereas in cladogenesis (the splitting of a species into two new species or the branching off of one species from another) there is a “clear” boundary. However, the method of speciation is the same in both, since beyond the moment of the split in cladogenesis, the transition to new species is by anagensis. So this is really a matter of semantics and differing ideologies.”(hence not established fact)


http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-erectus/


Some of the trends linking erectus with sapiens includes:

• An increase in brain size (erectus approximately 900 cc., sapiens approximately 1350 cc.).
• A reduction in postcanine dentition, and a correlated decrease in jaw size.
• Vertical shortening of the face.
• Shortening of armbones (especially the forearm) to come to a very humanlike limb proportions (postcranial proportions are very similar to tropically adapted modern humans).
• The development of a more barrel-shaped chest.
• The formation of an external nose.
• Reached modern human size in terms of height.

So take for example, the Turkana Boy skeleton in the Smithsonian, which to me is clearly human (an early variety of Sapien), it is a male about a 10 to 12 years old with a brain size about 880 cc’s (clearly would hit over 1000 cc’s as an adult which is normative for many modern pre-teen humans), probably would have hit 6 feet tall as an adult, is conceded by many to be very human from the neck down, has an established bridge indicating a projecting nose, and much more. The narrow spinal canal seems to have been an issue of debate. Yet even being small, it is still within the modern human range (albeit, at the bottom.)


Now I do not see the technical meaning of anagensis holding true outside of opinion only. By definition such a process necessitates phyletic transformation and I do not see any evidence or proof of that. When certain bacteria become anti-biotic resistant it remains the same type of bacteria not a new creature. Adaptation on different levels within different types of creatures is simply a matter of how we are made and how we transmit genes. My daughter Sally is totally Cillan resistant but clearly she is not a new species.


Based on data like that presented above, I actually see erectus as a palaeospecies. For any reading who do not know what that means, in this case it means an extinct species pf Sapien or “man” (an early variety) only identified by some fossil materials that shows distinct similarities yet also some differences (variations), albeit not always clearly defined. Especially in some examples, where the range of such variation does not exceed the possible, observable range within the existing modern variations. After all, there are humans with extremely small brain casings, some have bridgeless noses, and even longer faces and protruding mouth areas, but that does not mean they are apes! In my opinion, others are ape-kind that are being interpreted to be of the same group. And as pointed out, some are Frankenstiens conveniently pieced together (consider it my opinion if you must, but Leaky’s Heidelbergensis is a perfect example of such a hodge podge).


Paul

 

[brother Paul]

he was cruelly disappointed when, though some scientists greeted his finds enthusiastically, others dismissed them as ape remains, primitive human remains, or a jumble of fossils from separate individuals.

He wasn't sadly disappointed, he was caught just like his mentor Ernst Haekel...the sad disappointment is that it was perpetrated in textbooks as a human ancestor fro decades after....(since it was exposed this HAD TO BE done purely for indoctrination purposes only)

Why did he not just honestly present the thigh bone as human (which it was and still is) and the place them with the two human skulls he possessed? Because that would not present the illusion of phyletic transmutation he was willingly trying to persuade the masses of...(remember Geobbels)

 

[Barbarian]

I think many fossils of Erectus are just humans.

They are all humans. That's what "Homo" means. And you spell the species in lower case; "erectus", not "Erectus." They are, as you see, almost exactly like us from the neck down, but there are some rather important differences in the skull.

Albeit an early “Variety” of human, perhaps even one that died off. The eye socket and brow ridge regions are one such clue.

Not so much. Neandertals, who were H. sapiens, like us, had them. More important were small brains, simian shelf rather than chin, larger face and teeth, and a few other things. The earliest ones were a lot more apelike, even though the rest of their bodies were very much like ours.

On some of the skulls it is more pronounced on others less. Other fossils classified as Erectus are a variety of ape (long arms, bridgeless nose, flat small brain casings, etc.), and still others are pieced together mixtures of unrelated remains.

I'm guessing you have no specific cases in mind, since you haven't supported any of that.

Of the five skulls found in Dmanisi, Georgia, two actually look quite human (as any modern) while the other three appear more than likely ape.

Nope. Originally, some people thought that they differences in appearance must mean different species. But subsequent investigation showed that to be very unlikely:

A further skull name D4500 or simply Skull 5, the only intact skull ever found of an early Pleistocene hominin, was described in 2013.[8] At just under 546 cubic centimetres, the skull had the smallest braincase of all the individuals found at the site. The variations in these skulls prompted the researchers to examine variations in modern human and chimpanzees. The researchers found that while the Dmanisi skulls looked different from one another, the variations were no greater than those seen among modern people and among chimpanzees. These variations therefore suggest that previous fossil finds thought to be of different species on the basis of their variations, such as Homo rudolfensis, Homo gautengensis, H. ergaster and potentially H. habilis, may be alternatively interpreted as belonging to the same lineage as Homo erectus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

• An increase in brain size (erectus approximately 900 cc., sapiens approximately 1350 cc.).
• A reduction in postcanine dentition, and a correlated decrease in jaw size.
• Vertical shortening of the face.
• Shortening of armbones (especially the forearm) to come to a very humanlike limb proportions (postcranial proportions are very similar to tropically adapted modern humans).
• The development of a more barrel-shaped chest.
• The formation of an external nose.
• Reached modern human size in terms of height.

So take for example, the Turkana Boy skeleton in the Smithsonian, which to me is clearly human (an early variety of Sapien), it is a male about a 10 to 12 years old with a brain size about 880 cc’s (clearly would hit over 1000 cc’s as an adult which is normative for many modern pre-teen humans)

Not for one that tall, though. You see, a good part of brain size is merely caused by body size. So brain is a bit small for a large pre-teen.

probably would have hit 6 feet tall as an adult, is conceded by many to be very human from the neck down

As is true of H. erectus in every case I know of.

Now I do not see the technical meaning of anagensis holding true outside of opinion only. By definition such a process necessitates phyletic transformation and I do not see any evidence or proof of that.

The earliest known H. erectus were a little more advanced than gracile Australopithecines. The most recent ones are difficult to separate from archaic H. sapiens.

When certain bacteria become anti-biotic resistant it remains the same type of bacteria not a new creature.

Every new individual is a new creature. Speciation is a fact, so that's not a viable argument, either. The fossil evidences fits nicely with the genetic evidence showing that we are evolved from earlier hominoids, as are the other great apes.

Why not just accept it the way He did it?

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian says "Why not just accept it the way He did it?"

Because that's not the way God did it, its that simple. Adam was the first man that created in Gods image the rest were beasts birds and fish..

Now why don't you just accept the way He did it?

tob

 

[brother Paul]

Richard Milner in. "Cranial Capacity." The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's Search For Its Origins, (New York: Holt, 1990: 98) places the low end for modern young human skull size to be about 950 cc's so 880 is very close. I assume even his figure varies slightly by 10 cc's or so either way but this is really close for such an ancient specimen.

The earliest known H. erectus were a little more advanced than gracile Australopithecines.

The earliest "classified" as Erectus but I think these were two different creatures one not coming from the other.

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

Barbariansuggests:
Why not just accept it the way He did it?

Because that's not the way God did it, its that simple.

He didn't do it the way He did it? At least that's an honest representation of YE creationist thinking.

 

[Barbarian]

Richard Milner in. "Cranial Capacity." The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's Search For Its Origins, (New York: Holt, 1990: 98) places the low end for modern young human skull size to be about 950 cc's so 880 is very close.

But this particular specimen was larger than most of today's 12-y/os. And as you see, brain size is correlated with body size, other things being equal. So still too small to be regarded as within normal human range.

Barbarian observes:
The earliest known H. erectus were a little more advanced than gracile Australopithecines.

The earliest "classified" as Erectus but I think these were two different creatures one not coming from the other.

The problem is where to draw the line. There's a gradual change over time:

 

[brother Paul]

Other fossils classified as Erectus are a variety of ape (long arms, bridgeless nose, flat small brain casings, etc.), and still others are pieced together mixtures of unrelated remains.

I'm guessing you have no specific cases in mind, since you haven't supported any of that.

Didn't want to deviate from the flow of the conversation...but I can give you an example of such a hodge podge if you wish, but being an honest scientist I would think you would admit this and discredit them when they are demonstrated rather then make excuses for them, but I could be wrong (perhaps it is important to support such intentional intellectual dishonesty).

Also so not to be misunderstood, I did not say "science" in general supports these examples (though scientists often do via consensus) but they are often imposed on the minds of the young and inquiring for decades...(you know, the indoctrination/propaganda part of the Darwinian program through textbooks and media presentations)

So should we divert to an undeniable example?

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

Didn't want to deviate from the flow of the conversation...but I can give you an example of such a hodge podge if you wish

Since we're talking about H. erectus, I think a mention of places were unrelated bones were associated with one individual might be important. Tell us about this.

Also so not to be misunderstood, I did not say "science" in general supports these examples (though scientists often do via consensus)

Science often works by consensus. It's why Piltdown was such an embarrassment, until someone showed it was a hoax. The consensus among evolutionists was that a large brain should be the last thing to evolve in modern humans. (and by the time Piltdown was finally debunked, that prediction had been verified by a number of finds)

but they are often imposed on the minds of the young and inquiring for decades...

In most textbooks, Piltdown man was given pretty cursory discussion for the reason I mentioned. It just didn't fit. There was, in some textbooks, a bit of error regarding toolmaking evidence and A. africanus. There was the 1800s thing about a dinosaur specialist being fooled by a javelina tooth that was oddly worn in a way that made it look like that of a primate. That one didn't make textbooks, of course.

you know, the indoctrination/propaganda part of the Darwinian program

Sounds a bit paranoid. In general, Darwinism wasn't universally accepted until Mendel's work was re-discovered, and it became clear how a new variation could spread in a population. Even in the last century, there were still a few who denied what Darwin discovered. You might as well speak of the indoctrination/propaganda part of the Newtonian program.

Let's take a look at your erectus fossils made from diverse species.

 

[brother Paul]

Since we're talking about H. erectus, I think a mention of places were unrelated bones were associated with one individual might be important. Tell us about this.

At that juncture we were speaking about Dubois Java man

Lets take a look at some Erectus....

With Dubois Java man as one example (the real OP), where contrary evidence and the testimony of many scientists (actually who believed in evolution - some of whom I have named) was for some reason selectively excluded in the decades of text book story line (the whole truth is still not being told in these references). The human femur was presented as part of the gibbon like "Missing Link"

...but then for another there is what we read in Richard Leaky's "The First Europeans", National Geographic, July 1997, page 108, which is a contrived composite based on the Boxgrove find, the Heidelberg jaw, and a needed, sent for, and purchased Bodo Ethiopian skull (which erroneously combined are a true frankenstein) and is passed off in the article as our probable ancestor (which then millions automatically believed and is often used as an example in school texts as a real being).

Leaky knew he was promoting a fraud when he combined these finds and called them one being! He is too smart to not know they were unrelated. This example hit the next generations in many textbooks and was included as real in many media presentations along with a totally confabulated image (to assist the imprinting process).

Of the many examples we now “classify” as Homo Heidelbergensis, in my opinion, we can see the real people alive at that time who were every bit equal to modern humans (cranial capacity between 1100 and 1400 ccs, height and projected weight are equivalent, some sites show indications of burial, use of and making of tools, and so on).

Some assume they must have used a pre-linguistic form of communication but that is a totally confabulated unfounded assumption to imply they were under-evolved compared to moderns. But none the less they are “classified” as a different “species” (Ah yes that word again, so easily and oft conveniently changed through time) but I can accept this if it just means an earlier variety…but I suspect it was assigned to create an illusion of one aspect of the evolutionary process that that it really does not necessitate (that one creature became another over time).

 

[brother Paul]

(But my favorite R. Leaky example is his article publicized in Time Magazine…an incredibly ingenious propaganda piece used to support the brainwashing of the indoctrinated masses…he Is called an Anthropologist to give the illusion of credibility but the truth is he is not…and one must ask????? Why is the most primitive always a black man and the allegedly most “evolved” always a white man?) And that totally unfounded mask he had designed….wow! That really made an impression....

 

[Barbarian]

With Dubois Java man as one example (the real OP), where contrary evidence and the testimony of many scientists (actually who believed in evolution - some of whom I have named) was for some reason selectively excluded in the decades of text book story line (the whole truth is still not being told in these references). The human femur was presented as part of the gibbon like "Missing Link"

Show us that. Checkable source that it was a gibbon with a human femur added.

...but then for another there is what we read in Richard Leaky's "The First Europeans", National Geographic, July 1997, page108,

Popular magazine? Did you know that National Geographic once presented a "feathered dinosaur" in spite of the urging of real scientists to hold off on publishing until it could be checked out? Turned out to be a faked composite, unlike the real ones. So they don't have much credibility with scientists. Do you have anything from scientific literature? I'll need some kind of checkable source that Leakey combined those two fossils and pretended that they were one. What do you have?

H. heidlebergensis is an archaic member of our own species. But we're talking about H. erectus. Do you have anything?

 

[brother Paul]

Oh please!!!!

 

[brother Paul]

View attachment 6575


Sorry! The originally designated as human jawbone (classified as Erectus because it was large…like Shaq’s or Andre’s) attached to a skull found much later (who’s braincase was equal to modern humans) and then added to with some limb bones found in Spain (giving an average height range of 5’ 7” but as tall as 7”) has been given its own classification (how convenient, wouldn’t you say?)!

Two things…first if you believe the forensic facial reconstruction is correct, he looks a lot like the guy who delivers my oil (only his head hair is straight, not an African crovadis of close cropped kinky hair) and without the beard…though Eddie des have a thin mustache.

But of course we know that topical characteristics are best guess (see the popular propaganda piece to brainwash kids called "Walking with Dinosaurs" for a great example) but this is probably very close.

Secondly what then constitutes “modern”? Historically Berosus of Chaldea is not considered “modern”. In Archaeology's “modern” man (which goes back around 6,000 years…earliest organized civilizations) we see a vast range of variety (from Semitic to Kushite both genetic lines of whom were Noahic).

Of course if we take away the African looking hair, and give him a wide almost bridgeless nose (like many modern Africans) we get the contrived image shown on Wiki

Why not just admit many of these bones are simply an early variety of Sapien predating the 130,000 to 195,000 year mantra? Add that evidence to the human indicators at Peking and the stone tool usage, and monolithic structure found in Olduvia, along with the human Java femur and two equal to modern human skulls also found there...and admit we have been around a lot longer than we have been convinced of...its okay to be honest with the evidence....these are not "missing links" or semi ape-men...they are earlier varieties of men and woman (thats it....simple...I know it does not fit the mantra but so what)...

 

[Barbarian]

So nothing then?

Why are we talking about it, if there isn't anything?

Sorry! The originally designated as human jawbone (classified as Erectus because it was large…like Shaq’s or Andre’s) attached to a skull found much later (who’s braincase was equal to modern humans) and then added to with some limb bones found in Spain (giving an average height range of 5’ 7” but as tall as 7”)

You were going to provide checkable sources for the stories, remember?

Two things…first if you believe the forensic facial reconstruction is correct, he looks a lot like the guy who delivers my oil (only his head hair is straight, not an African crovadis of close cropped kinky hair) and without the beard…though Eddie des have a thin mustache.

Your oil delivery man has a simian shelf, instead of a chin? And has that kind of brow ridge, behind a receding forehead? If so, he's unique in the history of H. sapiens.

But of course we know that topical characteristics are best guess

No, you're very wrong about that. Facial reconstruction from skulls is a rather precise science. Would you like to learn how we know about it?

Secondly what then constitutes “modern”? Historically Berosus of Chaldea is not considered “modern”. In Archaeology's “modern” man (which goes back around 6,000 years…earliest organized civilizations)

So in your opinion, if they didn't build civilizations, they weren't human? Historically creationists made that claim, but most of them know better today. And of course, the earliest city building was a lot earlier than that:
Exploratory excavations conducted in Çayönü, Diyarbakır have revealed remains of houses which date back 10,500-11,000 years. Even more surprising have been the results of excavations conducted in the Nevale Çori region, which indicate that the people of Nevale Çori settled and lived in houses 500 years before the people of Çayönü.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/arqueologia/gobekli_tepe05.htm

Why not just admit many of these bones are simply an early variety of Sapien predating the 130,000 to 195,000 year mantra?

That jaw, for example. No modern human has it. It's another major difference beween H. erectus and H. sapiens.

Add that evidence to the human indicators at Peking and the stone tool usage, and monolithic structure found in Olduvia, along with the human Java femur and two equal to modern human skulls also found there...

You were going to provide some checkable sources for those claims. Is there a problem? Could we see that in the next post?