On Fri, 1 Sep 95 16:13:18 MDT you wrote:
SJ>It wouldn't matter. My diagram shows a line from Neanderthals to
>modern man (assuming H. neanderthalis and H. sapiens were
>interfertile).
JF>I would be very surprised if they weren't (which doesn't
>necessarily mean that they should belong in the same species).
>Cultural differences might have been a barrier to actual
>interbreeding.
I have no vested interest in this one way or another. My diagram
shows H. neanderthalis and H. sapiens interbreeding. But is there any
hard evidence they did? For example, skeletons which show common
features (I understand the Neanderthals had a very robust frame), or
H. sapiens and H. neanderthalis skeletons in close proximity, etc?
SJ>I understand that H. erectus skulls (Cossack man?) may have been
>found in Australia (no cracks please! :-)) only 10,000 years ago.
JF>This is a common claim of creation scientists, but I don't know of
>any mainstream scientists who say that. I have read a few statements
>by scientists saying that in spite of primitive features on these
>skulls, they are *definitely* Homo sapiens.
I am not a creation-scientist. However, Lubenow, "Bones of
Contention", 1992, p121 mentions two 6,000 y.a. H. erectus fossils:
"Mosgiel crainium, Australia" and "Cossack skull, mandible, limb
fragments, Australia" and cites Michael Day, "Homo turmoil.", Nature
348 (20/27 December 1990): 688.
He also cites Australian fossils at Kow Swamp and Cohuna that "are
said in the literature (A.G. Thorne, "Mungo and Kow Swamp:
Morphological Variations in Pleistocene Australians," Mankind 8:2,
December 1971: 87, 316, 319) to have Homo erectus features" (p132).
Obviously creation-science's vested interest is to see these recent
fossils as H. erectus (and thus reinforce their young-earth views),
while evolution's vested interest would be to see these as just
"primitive features" on H. sapiens.
But could Lubenow be right for the wrong reason? Could it be that H.
erectus survived in isolated Australia into modern times, until being
bred out (or killed off) by H. sapiens aborigines?
Lubenow writes (p153):
"We can sense the evolutionists' bewilderment as they write about
these fossils. Jeffery Laitman (Mt Sinai School of Medicine) mentions
fossil authorities who speak of extreme `disparities' found between
these two groups (Jeffery Laitman, "Australia," Encyclopedia of Human
Evolution and Prehistory", eds. Ian Tattersall, Eric Delson, and John
Van Couvering, New York: Garland Publishing, 1988, 67).
Is there any objective quantifiable evidence (eg. Zuckerman and
Oxnard's multi-variate analysis, etc), to decide one way or the other?
Regards.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------