[_ Old Earth _] Homo erectus : Peking Man.

[John]

The name "Homo erectus" refers to the fact that the evidence reveals that peking man walked erect. The only reason evolutionists suggested this skeleton was a subhuman rather than a modern man was the fact that this particular specimen had a somewhat smaller skull than some modern humans. However, it has now been proven that the size of home erectus brain was actually equal to the average size of most European men today. Therefore, there is no scientific reason whatsoever to believe that this peking man fossil represents anything other than a modern human skeleton that adds nothing to the evidence that purports to support the ToE of man. All of these fossils relating to Peking man have disappeared

 

[jwu]

You make it sound as if peking man were the only homo erectus, when in fact many of them have been found.

However, it has now been proven that the size of home erectus brain was actually equal to the average size of most European men today. Therefore, there is no scientific reason whatsoever to believe that this peking man fossil represents anything other than a modern human skeleton that adds nothing to the evidence that purports to support the ToE of man.

Brain size is not the only criterion for determining such things, the actual shape of the skeleton and skull also plays an important role. It would be outright dishonest to neglect such factors.

Are you seriously suggesting that this skull belongs to a modern human?

For comparison, a modern human skull:

I don't know where you get your information from, but your source is plainly lying to you:

However, it has now been proven that the size of home erectus brain was actually equal to the average size of most European men today.

The brain size of homo erectus varied from 800ccm to 1250ccm. The brain size of modern humans varies from 950ccm to 1800ccm, with an average of roughly 1450ccm. So the average human brain is 200ccm larger than the biggest homo erectus one that has ever been found.

 

[John]

that skull looks like an ape variant to me.

 

[jwu]

that skull looks like an ape variant to me.

Of course it does - homo erectus is a precursor species of humans after all.

How does this statement that it looks like an ape variant fit to your previous assertion that homo erectus is "a modern human skeleton"?

What about the other points raised in my rebuttal?

 

[freeway]

[attachment=0:08478]modern aborigines skull.jpg[/attachment:08478]

An anthropological paradox
The controversial Pintubi-1 skull of Australia (pictured above) is a paradox of paleoanthropology. As a hominid fossil, its so young that it has been assigned to a tribe that survived into the last century. A modern aboriginal skull. Yet its morphology could be described as archaic.
The skulls history is shrouded in mystery (not unlike others from the down under). Even without documentation, its age and Australoid identity are indisputable. The man it inha
bited lived An anthropologic paradox
very recently (in paleo-terms), likely in the 1800s or later. It is in perfect condition and shows no signs of antiquity. The skull was discovered or obtained around 1905 near the lower Darling River in New South Wales, Australia. Beyond that, all we are able to determine is that it is said to be a large adult 50 year old male from the Pintubi tribe.

Gee do you think, maybe? just maybe?, evolutionist are trying their hardest to find something that is just not there...

 

[jwu]

If you want to discuss this particular find, then please make a thread about it. This one is about the veracity of homo erectus fossils.

 

[freeway]

If you want to discuss this particular find, then please make a thread about it. This one is about the veracity of homo erectus fossils.

no I don't what to start a new thread, just implying that looks can be deceiving . Just because evolutionist say it so, do not make it so..

 

[jwu]

If you want to discuss this particular find, then please make a thread about it. This one is about the veracity of homo erectus fossils.

no I don't what to start a new thread, just implying that looks can be deceiving .

Of course they can. How is this relevant in regards to this thread? There were very specific claims which i quite specifically refuted with objective data, not superficial looks at some fossils. Note that your own source does not call the skull a homo sapiens, and that it hypothesizes that in the remote area of australia homo erectus survived for much longer than previously thought.

Just because evolutionist say it so, do not make it so..

Same about creationists ;)

 

[coal]

Just because evolutionist say it so, do not make it so.... Same about creationists ;)

Just because God said so... everything was created. Huh... seems like God wins! - Ohhh burn. Yes, I'm new, but the truth is there in the evidence and God's got more of the substantial evidence than evolution (pardon me, I meant the theory of evolution).

On the note of the homo erectus, if this hasn't already been said, reports of back problems in recent times, 2000+/- A.D., have been linked to the "missing link" of where apes began being human-like and walking upright (pardon me for not using the correct, long and complicated wording more associated with scientific debates, but today I feel like being an ordinary person and talking plain old English) and where we humans seem to have a backbone that, even through "evolution" (again the theory), has not fully adapted (huh, strange they use the word adapt and not evolved!) to walking upright. Apparently resulting in back problems today!

So called evidence of this being called proof of our inherited-like features makes no sense whatsoever. Archaeologists have heralded many human bones they have found (also they claimed to have dated over millions of years old) as having bowed backbones more accustomed to hunched over apes and not two legged walking man, sometimes even called Neanderthals. More recent tests have revealed that arthritis and many crippling old age problems were to the cause of it, and that the bones were fully human. Those very problems are the same today, we just like to ignore the fact that our back holds us upright and we need to properly take care of it, like lifting properly.

No where does it say that bowed backbones must prove humans came from apes, it just means back then they too were afflicted with arthritis and back problems. :D

 

[jwu]

First off, this thread is about homo erectus, not anything else - so i'll keep it short.

On the note of the homo erectus, if this hasn't already been said, reports of back problems in recent times, 2000+/- A.D., have been linked to the "missing link" of where apes began being human-like and walking upright (pardon me for not using the correct, long and complicated wording more associated with scientific debates, but today I feel like being an ordinary person and talking plain old English) and where we humans seem to have a backbone that, even through "evolution" (again the theory), has not fully adapted (huh, strange they use the word adapt and not evolved!) to walking upright. Apparently resulting in back problems today!

Yep, our evolutionary heritage is showing through there. Of course, the "recent" increase in lifespans plays an important role here as well.

So called evidence of this being called proof of our inherited-like features makes no sense whatsoever. Archaeologists have heralded many human bones they have found (also they claimed to have dated over millions of years old) as having bowed backbones more accustomed to hunched over apes and not two legged walking man, sometimes even called Neanderthals. More recent tests have revealed that arthritis and many crippling old age problems were to the cause of it, and that the bones were fully human.

Nope, even neanderthal children show these features - and many others which cannot be explained with diseases at all. Refer to the thread about neanderthals for reference.

Those very problems are the same today, we just like to ignore the fact that our back holds us upright and we need to properly take care of it, like lifting properly.

That view is overly simplistic. No matter how good you take care of it, the human spine is still more suitable for knuckle-drawing than upright walking.

 

[John]

Yep, our evolutionary heritage is showing through there. Of course, the "recent" increase in lifespans plays an important role here as well.

The evolution heritage line looks like someone took a 8 gauge shot gun to it.

Nope, even neanderthal children show these features - and many others which cannot be explained with diseases at all. Refer to the thread about Neanderthals for reference.

Maybe its because they were humans or.......Nephilim......
There were giants in the earth in those days.....

That view is overly simplistic. No matter how good you take care of it, the human spine is still more suitable for knuckle-drawing than upright walking.

then that means our legs must have been a lot shorter, thats or we get really scuffed knees. and just like the eye sockets, the spine always was, we have no proof that it evolved.

 

[jwu]

Maybe its because they were humans or.......Nephilim......
There were giants in the earth in those days.....

That may be worth its own thread.

then that means our legs must have been a lot shorter, thats or we get really scuffed knees. and just like the eye sockets, the spine always was, we have no proof that it evolved.

Well, the ball is currently in your park in the eye sockets thread.

What better explanation than evolution do you have to offer for the way the human spine is?
You basically can choose between ongoing evolution or bad design.

 

[John]

Well, the ball is currently in your park in the eye sockets thread.

i forgot about it :P

What better explanation than evolution do you have to offer for the way the human spine is?
You basically can choose between ongoing evolution or bad design.

bad design ? why is that, i can run, walk, crawl, somersault, back flip, swim..no no my spine works just fine thank a you

 

[coal]

[quote:b1484]

bad design ? why is that, i can run, walk, crawl, somersault, back flip, swim..no no my spine works just fine thank a you

[/quote:b1484]

As can I, and my back has no more problems than when I was born, other than the normal ware and tare of being an active human - Maybe they were over active back then? Maybe they... walked more, and ran more... maybe just maybe :P

 

[jwu]

bad design ? why is that, i can run, walk, crawl, somersault, back flip, swim..no no my spine works just fine thank a you

You're a 20 years old guy...tell a 50 years old one with permanent back aches that his spine works perfectly.

And while yours works good for now, it still doesn't work as good as it could.