Homo erectus Refutes Human Evolution
Homo erectus is perhaps the most important ‘transitional’ form in human evolution. It looked very much like modern man except for a number of supposedly more ape-like features. But if erectus can be shown to be fully human, the case for human evolution essentially collapses. There would be an unbridgeable morphological gap between the ape Australopithecines and human erectus. So is erectus human? Let’s take a look.
The Characteristics of Erectus
Evolutionists believe erectus to be sub-human based on certain features of the skull like the large brow ridges. But this is not evidence at all, because humans today have essentially all of these features. The cranial (i.e. brain) capacity is within the human range; there is good evidence that erectus used tools; had controlled use of fire; they buried their dead; they used red ochre for decoration; had seafaring skills; and their posture was just like ours.
Based on the above evidence, many prominent scientists have classified Homo erectus as Homo sapiens(modern man) because ‘no single definition has been found that distinguishes H. sapiens from H. erectus in all regions where the fossils are found’ and ‘there is no distinct beginning for H. sapiens as long as H. erectus is recognized.’ This is all very interesting, but there is much more.
Human Erectus Fossils in Australia
Certain fossils have been discovered in Australia that look strikingly like erectus (the Kow Swamp individuals from 10,000 years ago; Mossgiel individual dated 6,000 years ago; and Cossack skeletal remains dated from a few 100 to 6,500 years ago).
Since these fossils are so ‘young’, evolutionists explain them in non-evolutionary terms. That is, the strongerectus-like features are not explained by evolution from apes, but by other non-evolutionary mechanisms such as the climate, nutritional problems, genetic factors, and others.
So why should we need evolution to explain ‘normal erectus’ when we can explain it by other non-evolutionary factors? Evolutionists have just undone the whole idea of human evolution! Here’s the conundrum: it is unthinkable that these individuals weren’t human due to the ‘young’ date, but if they were human, then normal erectus must be human also.
Not only does the morphological evidence point to the fact that erectus is fully human, but evolutionists themselves explain erectus in non-evolutionary terms! Because the crucial chain-link of erectus is now broken, the current idea of human evolution is finished.
“The Australian erectus-like fossils represent an isolated and remnant population.”
This is wrong. The fossils are found continent-wide, so they cannot simply be an isolated and remnant population. Indeed, scientists have said that ‘this morphology was not a regional variant but continental in distribution’.
- Shreeve, J., The Neandertal Enigma, William Morrow and Company Inc., New York, p. 100, 1995. Back to text
- Rightmire, G.P., “Brain size and encephalization in Early to Mid-Pleistocene Homo”,American J. Physical Anthropology 124:113, 2004. p. 110; Molnar, S., Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups, Prentice-Hall Inc., NJ, p. 57, 1975. Back to text
- Thwaites, T., “Ancient mariners: Early humans much smarter than we expected,” New Scientist 157(2125):6, 14 March 1998. Also, Morwood, “Fission-track ages of stone tools and fossils on the east Indonesian island of Flores,” Nature 392(6672):173–176, 12 March 1998. Back to text
- Spoor, F., “Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion,” Nature 369(6482):645–648, 23 June 1994. Back to text
- Wolpoff, M.H., Paleoanthropology, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston, p. iv, 1999. pp. 396-397. Back to text
- “Late Pleistocene Man at Kow Swamp,” Nature 238:308 (11 Aug. 1972). Back to text
- Richard G. Klein, The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 2nd ed., p. 571; “Late Pleistocene Man at Kow Swamp,” Nature 238:308 (11 Aug. 1972). Back to text
- L. Freedman and M. Lofgren, “The Cossack skull and a dihybrid origin of the Australian Aborigines,” Nature 282 (15 Nov. 1979): 299. Back to text