On Wed, 02 Jul 1997 22:20:35 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>Wait a minute. You are grossly mis-representing the
>anthropological record.
I would remind you that you claim that full humanity existed 5.5 mya,
before the "anthropological record" shows even the earliest *beginnings*
of humanity. You have admitted that "no one on the entire planet..
agrees with" you:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 22:56:08 -0500
To: Jim Bell <JamesScottBell@compuserve.com>,
"INTERNET:evolution@Calvin.EDU" <evolution@calvin.edu>
From: grmorton@psyberlink.net (Glenn Morton)
Subject: Re: Earliest burial ritual
[...]
If it will make you feel better, I will say NO ONE ON THE ENTIRE
PLANET THAT I QUOTE OR DON"T QUOTE AGREES WITH
ME. That of course has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of my
case.
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, your attacks on others for "grossly mis-representing the
anthropological record" is somewhat lacking in credibility until you
attend to this "beam that is in thine own eye" (Mt 7:3).
GM>NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE disputes that Homo Erectus was on the
>line to modern humans.
This is overstating it a bit. Jim Foley's Fossil Hominid FAQ says that
"the relationship between erectus, sapiens and the Neandertals is still
unclear":
"Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is.
Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus,
robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that
left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A.
afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter
of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is
our ancestor. The discoveries of A. ramidus and A. anamensis are so
recent that it is hard to say what effect they will have on current
theories. It is generally accepted that Homo erectus is descended
from Homo habilis, but the relationship between erectus, sapiens and
the Neandertals is still unclear. Neandertal affinities can be detected in
some specimens of both archaic and modern sapiens." (Foley J.,
"Fossil Hominids FAQ", April 16, 1996).
But Tattersal has a diagram which shows that early "Homo Erectus was on the
line to modern humans":
Mya
0 -
| H. sapiens
| | H. neanderthalensis
| | /
| | /
| H. heidelbergensis
1 - \
| \ H. erectus
| \ /
| \ /
| |
| H. ergaster
2 - | P. robustus P. boisei
| H. habilis | /
| H. rudolfensis | | /
| \ | | /
| \ | | /
| A. africanus P. aethiopicus
3 - | /
| | /
| | /
| | /
| A. afarensis
| |
4 - A. anamensis
| A. ramidus /
| \ /
| \ /
| \ /
| \/
5 - |
| |
(Tattersall I., "The Fossil Trail", 1995, p234)
GM>NO ONE absolutely NO ONE disputes that archaic Homo sapiens is on
>the line to modern humans.
"archaic Homo sapiens" is now called Homo heidelbergensis:
"They put forward the argument - partly based on my research that a
common population existed in both Africa and Europe about 400,000
years ago (evolved from Homo erectus and which is now called
Homo heidelbergensis, replacing the term 'archaic sapiens' used in
early chapters, and which is represented by fossils like the Petralona
and Broken Hill skulls)." (Stringer C., & McKie R., "African Exodus"
1997, p73)
It may indeed be that both Neanderthals and modern humans are separate
offshoots of H. heidelbergensis:
"`Archaic' skulls are very different from our own-more robust with
large faces and teeth and conspicuous brow ridges. I classify H.
neanderthalensis as a species in its own right and place the rest of the
archaics in a separate species, H. heidelbergensis. The latter arose in
Africa and spread throughout the world. Both Neanderthals and
modern humans are then seen as separate offshoots of H.
heidelbergensis and classified as full species." (Wood B., "Boning up
on dates", New Scientist, 20 May 1995, p27)
GM>The only dispute is about Neanderthal. The Sima people
>are archic Homo sapiens or Homo erectus.
Indeed. They are also thought to be pre-Neandertals:
"The brain case of archaic sapiens was also relatively higher and more
filled out above the ear region, until - by about 300,000 years ago -
this hominid line began to manifest the features of a new species in
Europe, as we can judge from the fossil treasure trove of Atapuerca,
a Spanish cave that has produced the largest single collection of
ancient human bones from anywhere in the world. About 1,100 bones
and teeth representing the jumbled skeletons of at least thirty men,
women and children were uncovered in a small chamber deep in the
cave, at the bottom of a 50 ft vertical sinkhole. How these bones
were deposited in the cave, we do not know. All that has been
determined to date is that they show an intriguing mixture of
ancestral (erectus) and more advanced characteristics. Some had
brain sizes above the modern average, some well below, and the form
of the bones on the side of the brain cases looks remarkably modern.
The many teeth found at the site are quite small by erectus standards,
and some of the front ones (the incisors) show fine scratches where
something (meat, fibres?) was held in the jaws and cut with stone
tools (held by right-handers). The jaws were less strongly built than
those of erectus, but were still chinless. The Atapuerca skeletons have
still to be assembled but may well turn out to be shorter on average
than their immediate predecessors. More importantly, their finger,
arm, hip, and leg bones resemble those of the people that came after
them in Europe - the Neanderthals, those enigmatic hominids who
(with other species who evolved from erectus elsewhere in the world)
form the penultimate chapter in the writing of the Book of Humanity.
Quite simply, the Atapuerca people look like primitive Neanderthals
and provide a link between the erectus lineage and the classic
European hominids who lived during the last Ice Age." (Stringer C.,
& McKie R., "African Exodus", 1997, p33)
GM>The same can be said of the Bilzingsleben people who scratched
>the image of a quadruped on a bone.
Agreed that "Bilzingsleben" is archaic "Homo sapiens":
"Bilzingsleben. The frontal fragment has been identified as archaic
sapiens." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical
Anthropology", 1991, p511)
The dating is unclear:
"Bilzingsleben...Dating: Most likely Mindel-Riss interglacial, about
425-200 kya, probably closer to 280 kya. Questions still remain
concerning date." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To
Physical Anthropology", 1991, p554)
GM>You can not find anyone who says that Homo erectus or archaic
Homo sapiens were not on the line leading to modern man!!!!
Even this is not as clear as you make out. The latest thinking is
that "H. erectus" refers to the Asian form (eg. Java Man, Pekin Man)
and H. ergaster, who remained in Africa, was our ancestor more
direct ancestor:
"After H. habilis comes H. erectus. Again, fossils may more correctly
be H. divided in two. The earlier kind which arose in and then
migrated out of Africa could be reclassified as H. ergaster, leaving H.
erectus in its new, narrow sense to describe those descendants of H.
ergaster who migrated into Asia. Then H. ergaster would be our true
ancestor." (Wood B., "Boning up on dates", New Scientist, 20 May
1995, p27)
"The table summarises, in his own words, thinking to date. Two
things set this classification apart from many others. First, Wood
recognises the third genus Paranthropus. In addition, his work
supports the splitting of hominids into some new species. Within
Paranthropus he recognises three species-two from East Africa and
one from southern Africa. Notably, too, he divides H. habilis-the
oldest acknowledged member of our own genus-in two, to give a
more strictly defined H. habilis and a new species, H. rudolfensis
characterised by a broader face, heavier lower jaw and larger grinding
teeth. Wood also divides H. erectus into H. ergaster-the first hominid
to spread out of Africa to Eurasia-and H. erectus, which evolved in
Asia. Finally, he recognises three species among our closest
ancestors. From "archaic" H. sapiens comes, H. heidelbergensis-the
ancestor of both the Neanderthals, H. neanderthalensis, and
ourselves, H. sapiens." (Tudge C., "A Family Feud", New Scientist,
20 May 1995, p28)
[...]
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------