>> Mader says there were distinct mental differences between H. erectus
>> and H. sapiens:
>> "Homo erectus...was prevalent throughout Eurasia and Africa
>> during the Pleistocene Epoch, also called the Ice Age, because of the
>> recurrent cold weather that produced the glaciers of this epoch. Homo
>> erectus had an average brain size of 1,000 cc, but the shape of the
>> skull indicates that the areas of the brain necessary for memory,
>> intellect, and language were not well developed."
>> (Mader S., "Biology", 3rd Ed., Wm. C. Brown: Indiana, 1990, p435)
I agree totally. The average brain size of H. erectus was about 2/3rds
that of modern humans, and that had to reflect some significant
differences. On the other hand, "not well developed" is a relative
term: I bet they were much smarter than a chimp in all these areas.
How smart they were is anyone's guess; mine is that a *smart* erectus
(say, top 1%) might well reach the modern average (IQ of 100).
I'm not actually sure what positions everyone is defending here. Glenn
seems to consider erectus as human (and post-Adam), Jim Bell I think is
claiming that it was pre-Adamic, without a soul. I am more familiar
with YEC literature, and most of them seem to think that erectus are
post flood humans, possibly degenerate because of harsh environmental
conditions. Stephen, where do you stand?
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort CollinsJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765* 1st 1.11 #4955 * "I am Homer of Borg! Prepare to be...OOooooo! Donuts!!!"