H. Erectus Engravings: Bye, Bye Apeman Hypothesis!

A reconstruction of Turkana Boy, the best-known H. erectus specimen.




Joel Kontinen

Not so long ago Darwinists assumed that only H. sapiens was capable of creating art. However, last year the Neanderthal hashtag made news, challenging this view.

Previously, Neanderthals were known to be inventors, mariners and
even otherwise technologically advanced.

Now, Homo erectus is on its way to lose its apeman status. According to a recent letter in Nature:

“The manufacture of geometric engravings is generally interpreted as indicative of modern cognition and behaviour. Key questions in the debate on the origin of such behaviour are whether this innovation is restricted to Homo sapiens, and whether it has a uniquely African origin. Here we report on a fossil freshwater shell assemblage from the Hauptknochenschicht (‘main bone layer’) of Trinil (Java, Indonesia), the type locality of Homo erectus discovered by Eugène Dubois in 1891. In the Dubois collection (in the Naturalis museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) we found evidence for freshwater shellfish consumption by hominins, one unambiguous shell tool, and a shell with a geometric engraving. We dated sediment contained in the shells with 40Ar/39Ar and luminescence dating methods, obtaining a maximum age of 0.54 ± 0.10 million years and a minimum age of 0.43 ± 0.05 million years. This implies that the Trinil Hauptknochenschicht is younger than previously estimated. Together, our data indicate that the engraving was made by Homo erectus, and that it is considerably older than the oldest geometric engravings described so far. Although it is at present not possible to assess the function or meaning of the engraved shell, this discovery suggests that engraving abstract patterns was in the realm of Asian Homo erectus cognition and neuromotor control.”

In other words, H. erectus knew about geometry and was able to create art.

This makes the case for human evolution to be very weak and it is a hard nut to crack for progressive creationists like Hugh Ross who regards H. erectus as a soulless apeman.

The Genesis-based model has always seen Neanderthals and H. erectus as fully human. They lived during the post-Flood era.


Source:

Joordens, Josephine C. A. et al. 2015. Homo erectus at Trinil on Java used shells for tool production and engraving. Nature 518, 228–231.

The Death of Early Man Theories

Dmanisi skull 5. Image courtesy of Guram Bumbiashvili, Georgian National Museum.





Joel Kontinen

The recent discovery of a skull in Dmanisi in Georgia by anthropologists from the University of Zurich has demolished Darwinian thinking on our ancestors. Previously, researchers “knew” that the genus Homo consisted of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo rudolfensis and Homo ergaster.

This thinking was mostly based on a few isolated fragmentary skulls and bone parts, each displaying a different trait. It has turned out to be very problematic. Dr. Marcia Ponce de León acknowledges, “At present there are as many subdivisions between species as there are researchers examining this problem.”

Researchers dated the Dmanisi skull as 1.85 million years old and categorised it as H. erectus.

Professor Christoph P.E. Zollikofer’s statement says a lot about how researchers invent species: “Had the braincase and the face of the Dmanisi sample been found as separate fossils, they very probably would have been attributed to two different species.”

Now, researchers are suggesting that the genus Homo only includes a single species.

When a single skull brings down an entire tree one might be justified in concluding that the evolutionary story is anything but robust.

Source:

Unique skull find rebuts theories on species diversity in early humans. EurekAlert! 17 October, 2013.

Much ado about Australopithecus sediba

Researchers do not know where they should place Australopithecus sediba.



Joel Kontinen

The popular media have once again been busy promoting a purported human ancestor. This time, however, some newspapers have taken a surprisingly critical approach. The Independent, published in London, quotes Australian evolution researcher Darren Curnoe, who says: “Australopithecus sediba is the wrong species, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time. It is way too primitive to be the ancestor of the human genus Homo, one of our direct ancestors.”

The fossils, estimated to be just under two million years old, are almost half a million years younger than the earliest known specimens of H. habilis.

Found in a cave in Malapa, South Africa, the two fossils – an adult and a juvenile – have already attracted much discussion and even criticism in the evolution camp, although they were published just two days ago in Science. Their discoverers, Lee Berger and colleagues, gave them the name Australopithecus sediba.

Many other anthropologists feel that it is far too early to regard the fossils as a new species. According to Nature news, anthropologists Tim White and Fred Grine criticised Berger and his colleagues for using the juvenile specimen in determining whether it differs sufficiently from Homo fossils. This obviously distorted their conclusion.

The assumed age of the fossils - 1.78 – 1. 95 million years – is also interesting. The researchers came up with this date by examining the ground below them by the uranium –lead (U-Pb) method. However, if for instance water had moved the fossils, the credibility of the dates will be much weaker.

Interpreting and dating fossils is an intriguing game. In 1990 J. Shreeve wrote in Discover magazine: ”Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear.”

Sources:

Balter, Michael. 2010. Candidate Human Ancestor From South Africa Sparks Praise and Debate. Science 328: 5975, 154 – 155. (9 April) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;328/5975/154

Berger, Lee R. & al. 2010. Australopithecus sediba: A New Species of Homo-Like Australopith from South Africa. Science 328: 5975, 195 – 204. (9 April)

Cherry, Michael. 2010. Claim over 'human ancestor' sparks furore. Nature News (8 April) http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100408/full/news.2010.171.html

Macknight, Hugh. 2010. Experts reject new human species theory. The Independent (8 April) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/experts-reject-new-human-species-theory-1939512.html