Why are there no human apes alive today?

As nobody has helped you with this point, I'll add that evidence for human occupation of Australia goes as far back as 40 kya and possibly even as far back as 60 kya. You really seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that extinctions do not falsify evolution. Is it really that hard for you to realise that not having your great great "insert-relative" around doesn't mean you are not related to them?

We keep trying to explain this to you but you don't seem to even want to think about it. I would be surprised if you didn't know species go extinct, even today. That's why we don't see T. Rex terrorizing farms, or Wooly Mammoths roaming with the bison herds. It's why we don't see Neanderthals or Homo Erectus, or Australopiths. Species going extinct doesn't falsify the Theory of Evolution.Like your own Family tree, the evolutionary tree describes relationships between individuals/species and their families. Losing a family member doesn't erase your relationship with that person, just as extinctions don't negate a species relationship with other species. It would be just as silly to think that you just "popped" into existence one day (perhaps the stork brought you?) as it is silly to think that species just "pop" into existence. You seem to have basic misunderstanding of speciation and evolution. The individual peppered moth doesn't change its coloration to fit the environment. The ratio of light and dark moths does change within the species, but they remain the same species. The variation we see in peppered moth populations is a far cry from changing into a totally different species. The analogy is absurd. Extinctions happen. The fact that they do does not falsify evolution.Where is the Dire Wolf? What happened to the Sabertooth Cats? Have you ever seen a living Phorusrhacid (Terror Bird)? An Apatosaurus? Diploducus? Iguanadon? Bison Antiquus? The Pleistocene American horse species?You're not helping your argument by adding something so absurd as, "...exinction is not part of the circle." The selection of larger brains and bipedal walking is not the end-all and be-all of evolution. It does not guarantee our survival. It has helped and is a tremendous advantage, but it isn't a sure-thing. Chimps survived because they have adapted to their wooded environment, and there wasn't any pressure for them to develop bipedal walking or larger brains. If the selected adaptation works for the species, then that is good enough.Again, I will repeat myself from previous posts: Hominins like Erectus and Floresienis and Neanderthals did survive until roughly 30 kya and humans did live and die along-side them. We competed against them and possibly mated with some. Your premise is shown to be incorrect again as other hominins were here until fairly recently. As biologist and Russian orthodox christian Dobzhansky stated to the anti-evoution crowd: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Your link was broken, but if you have a link to the research paper it would be appreciated.I am not sure if you are proposing that falsifying the "out of Africa" hypothesis would falsify evolution or if you support the alternative multiregional hypothesis of human evolution. The point that is confusing is that both still rely on the Theory of Evolution as the core of their argument. If there were no evolution then there would be no need for either theory! I must say I am somewhat enthused by your desire to develop your own hypothesis detailing human evolution. There might be the making of an anthropologist or evolutionary biologist within you if you keep this up.Anthropologists really don't have the full picture of our evolutionary path. Digging through the convergence and parallel evolution in order to infer the phylogenetic relationships between the hominids is difficult. Yet, it is becoming more focused as we discover more species, and like a puzzle, you might be able to make out objects and see possible connections, but the pieces are not always filled in. Anthropologists have the fossils, they see the primitive and derived features of the skeletons, they have the artifacts, but there are competing ideas on how they match up. Over time we hope to see a more complete picture.What does this mean for Ardi?First, let's be clear that Ardipithecus Ramidus lived more than a million years before A. Afarensis. Specifically A. Ramidus lived around 5.8 to 5.2 million years ago, while A. Aferensis lived around 4 to 3 million yars ago. There is nothing profound in finding that 'Ardi' has more primitive features, as the species is almost 2 million years older than 'Lucy'. It is also closer to the time range of the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, so finding a species with traits shared with chimpanzees isn't that much of a leap.Since you have a legitimate 'complaint' about where A. Ramidus lies within the phylogenetic tree, perhaps you would like to think about making your own evolutionary tree and show us where you think 'Ardi' should be placed?Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

I don't believe that you are this foolish. Can you not name any creature that has gone extinct, without human interference? Any dinosaurs even? Catastrophes, like Toba, do not have to be global to have an impact on species. A regional change in the ecosystem can induce future speciation events, as well as...extinctions. I don't know any scientists who think that evolution has all the answers. If it did, we wouldn't need to keep researching. It is also how science works. The fact is that the Theory of Evolution is well supported, and has survived more than a hundred years of research and discoveries. You are also under a misapprehension if you think that poking holes in evolutionary theory adds support to creationism. Creationism has no explanatory or predictive power. All it can tell us is, "God did it."

Scientists don't just give names to every new variation. We go through a rigorous process in the naming of new species. We don't just spot a different colored dog and call it a new species of horse. We use morphologies and homologies and DNA to determine relatedness. We use parsimony in determining that it wouldn't make sense to say we are more closely related to the dog than we are to the chimpanzee. Our bone structure is closer to the chimpanzee than the dog by a long shot. If you would take a look at a dogs paw and a chimpanzees hand or foot, you should be able to see that our hand/foot more closely resembles the chimpanzees, even with the obvious differences. This comparison (complemented by DNA analysis where possible) is used in determining the relatedness of all species.If we look at the skull bones of Homo Heidelbergensis, specifically just for this example, we see that it has some similarities with our own skulls and some differences. (We call these homologies, or traits shared between two species and their common ancestor, and homoplasies, or traits shared between two species but not seen in the common ancestor. We further divide homologies into those that are shared derived and those that are ancestral.) Their brain size in relation to their body size is within the range of H. Sapeins. They share some derived traits such as a higher forehead, more vertical sides, and more rounded back. But they also retain some primitive features such as the massive browridges, occipital torus, thick skull bones, longer and lower skull, and no chin.If we compare H. Erectus with H. Sapiens, we find fewer shared derived traits (than we share with H. Heidelbergensis) and see that H. Erectus has retained more ancestral traits than we do. Which traits Iv'e already discussed.And so on. Each Hominid species shows these mix of homologies and homoplasies and from these we infer relationships. Either to a closer relationship or one less related. The more primitive traits and fewer shared traits with us that a Homonid has, the farther away from us in evolution but NOT necessarily in time. When we speak of ancestors we are speaking of our relationships, and like our relationships with our parents, they are likely to still be around the same time we are. At teh risk of confusing you, as you seem intent on picturing scientists as a monolithic entity, there remains even today a debate about how we classify H. Erectus, Neanderthals, Ergaster, etc. You share some ideas with the Multiregionalists such as M. Wolpoff, and some that are your own. Wolpoff would classify Ergaster and Erectus as both being H. Sapiens, along with Neanderthals and Heidelbergensis. And there is nothing wrong with holding such a view as long as you can support it with scientific data. A point should be made as well that Some scientists disagree with the addition of Ergaster and would rather they remain labeled as Erectus. Whatever the disagreements on the taxonomies and evolutionary trees the scientists all agree on one thing: Evolution is a fact. You continue to have a misapprehension of what would constitute a new species. To be a species it has to be capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Since fat humans are still capable of breeding with skinny ones, they remain H. Sapiens. If, over time, it comes about that fat humans are then incapable of producing fertile offspring with skinnier ones, then their classification may be changed. If we are incapable of determining whether a species could breed with another, especially considering they might have been extinct for a very long time and no evidence suggests they could or would have, then we catalog each of their traits and from there go through the rigorous process of placing them on the phylogenetic tree. My answers above should answer your statement here. I've no wish to repeat myself in the same post and this point has been discussed before; so I hope you would have read and attempted to understand what I've written thus far. Some of them existed ALONGSIDE humans as recently as 18 kya. Whether it was humans who caused their extinction or the fact that they were geographically isolated and some catastrophy or ecological change wiped them out is up for debate.Some species are more geographically limited and it would take only a regional catastrophy to cause their extinction. Case in point are the Gorillas and chimpanzees. It would take less to cause their extinction than it would for baboons.Humans exist on ALL continents. The remains of other hominin species has currently been found in a more limited geographic range. It isn't so difficult to infer that a species that has a lower technological achievement, lower brainsize, and smaller geographic range would have difficulties competing with another species in a similar ecological niche. That we might have interbreed with some of them, shows how we might have also absorbed them into our own species at the same time we were competing with them.The point remains that having a sister species around or not does NOT negate the Fact of evolution, nor does it refute the Theory. It is indeed sad that we don't have more extant Homonin species around. It would have helped us tremendously with all our questions.Edited by DBlevins, : added the word 'answer' to sentence.

Considering that we have adult crania from the same region and within the timeframe for ergaster that show distinct difference from erectus (see KNM-ER 3733), and the almost complete lack of Mode 2 tools associated with erectus fossils, it isn't a stretch to infer a different species. Specifically the lack of a sagital keel in ergaster vice erectus; the less pronounced occipital torus in ergaster; the thicker skull and more pronounced browridges and much steeper slope of the sides of the skull of erectus. Even the H. Erectus finds that have been dated more recently appear to retain more ancient traits than H. Eregaster specimens from 1 mya.I think it would be a mistake to project that the growth patterns of the juvenile skull would be from adult skulls when they are so far apart regionally and considering that we have remains that are much closer.

I was hoping that Mazzy might pick up that Anthropologists might have disagreements about classifications but that doesn't falisify evolution.It IS interesting that Mazzy has lumped Turkana boy in with H. Sapiens and discounted H. Erectus. Of course, that is really similar to the disagreements that scientists have in developing the evolutionary tree for humans (and other species). Why she doesn't recognize the traits that the Flores fossils share with H. Erectus is beyond me, especially considering their proximity in time and space.I was hoping Mazzy might engage us in a more detailed analysis of why she placed H. Ergaster with H. Sapiens and not H. Erectus, and through this process come to understand the evolutionary relationships between other species as well. (Whether she recognizes it or not, she is very close to the reasoning we use to infer evolutionary relationships)By the way, considering that as a species our DNA shows a significant lack of diversity vice other species, I personally would have no problem believing that Erectus and Ergaster were truly one species and the morphological differences were more in-tune with genetic differences that we see within other species.

While slight changes between later and more recent H. Erectus are apparant they are actually very small when compared to the more significant changes in cranial capacity, technology, and behavior shown by contemporary hominid species in Africa and Eurasia.

Without the DNA analysis it is difficult to determine what is due to parallel evolution as well as what is due to convergence and what is due to interbreeding. Multiregionalism doesn't suggest that groups acquired similar traits in isolation, which is what you seem to be suggesting. (Apologies if I am misunderstanding you.) This sounds more like support for convergent evolution rather than multiregionalism. Nothing wrong with hidden variation but I am not clear on what 'wierd' mutation mechanics you are speaking of?P.S. Another example of the problems we run into: Depending on the gene, beneficial mutations can be carried from one population to another without having an impact on skeletal morphologies such as between humans and neanderthals. Also, what appears to us to be a different species based on morphologies might just be differing responses to selective pressures, and the two types have/had enough gene flow that they should really be classified as one species. I think the common deceit we hold is that because we retain significant similarities in our morphology that other hominid species should as well.

Multiregionalism holds that there was just enough gene flow between the differing groups that they all evolved together into us. Speciation therefore was never 'allowed' to occur, and thus no need for "mutational" wierdness.The 'Out of Africa' model suggests that there really were different species and H. Sapiens replaced them.Edited by DBlevins, : Added out of africa...

Mazzy,I am starting to realize that your problem with human evolution has a lot to do with your distrust of the scientific method. I think this distrust stems from the fact that scientists will present arguments that detail their evidence for a claim while another scientist might detail evidence against that claim. It then appears that scientists really know nothing because they seem to constantly contradict each other. This misapprehension about the conflicting nature of human professionals and the scientific method leads to a conclusion that someone is lying to you. What’s worse (for us scientistsand maybe for you as well) is that you desire 100% certainty. It is a core of your belief system. On the other hand, while science might approach certainty, it will never achieve it.Scientists realize that humans are fallible. We make mistakes; we misinterpret data; we draw wrong conclusions. (I am sure you would recognize this even within the Christian sphere with those who argue about saythe rapture. Look the arguments on post-tribulation versus pre-tribulation, etc.) It is why we developed, what we call, the scientific method. It is a way to mitigate those errors. We might move our understanding forward, through testing and verification, but it’s a never ending process. While we can’t help but make mistakes or misinterpret data, we can always rely on others to check up on us. We hold symposiums and present papers to committees and if other scientists look at our data and reach the same or similar conclusions, then we can be reasonably assured that we did some things right. Our assuredness might even grow greater the more people that look at our data and agree with our conclusions.That doesn’t mean some upstart might not find data that they interpret as falsifying our conclusions. Then scientists will take a look at his/her data and reach their own conclusions on what it means and they might even come to support his conclusion. We continue to re-evaluate our data and see if we can poke holes in our own and other contradicting conclusions. Eventually a consensus comes around. This might take a long, long time, while other scientists look for more data and work out their own conclusions. The bottom line, though, is that we never know when some scientists, perhaps in the future, might find data that contradicts our conclusion. This process is the best way we know of right now, to develop our understanding of the world and universe we live in. Until there a better way is found, this is it.I hope this helps with your understanding and misgivings you have about scientists and science in general. With this in mind, let’s try to answer some of your questions and conclusions. That anthropologists disagree about where to place fossils within the evolutionary tree is indisputable. Especially when we don’t have all the data we need to strengthen our conclusions. In case you were unaware, the remaining fossil material from Aramis has not yet been described, so it seems a bit premature for you to be ascribing such certainty. It is also the case that Wood and Harrison are basically cautioning against the conclusion that A. ramidus belongs in the direct human line. They are clearly not making the conclusion that humans did not evolve. We also see that White supports his conclusion by noting that he was looking at the whole functional complexes and this is what drew his conclusion that A. ramidus belonged in the line leading to humans vice the line of the great apes.Anyways, by itself, the placement of the foramen magnum forward under the skull is not conclusive evidence of a habitual biped. It is associated with bipedal locomotion though. Additionally, while A. ramidus has traits that are apelike, such as the jaw joint, deciduous molars, and a more pneumatized skull base, it does share derived traits with the hominin line. Taken together, these derived traits, including the placement of the foramen magnum, are what, I believe, White bases his conclusion on. You’re welcome to disagree, but it might behoove you to study the reasoning behind those disagreements before you determine they are valid. I don’t believe you rebutted what you think you’re rebutting. You did post a link to an article in which, the researchers note that, The extraordinary resemblance does not indicate that Anoiapithecus has any relationship with Homo and it just might be an example of convergence. Being that it is much older than the age we have determined to be for our common ancestor with Chimpanzees makes it likely as an evolutionary offshoot or a deadend. It might hold clues as to the region in which hominids first evolved, though. Namely, that Eurasia was the seat from which hominids radiated. Like all scientific endeavors, we await more data. Againonce again, the disagreements about the placement of fossils in the phylogenetic tree is not a falsification of evolution. Without DNA evidence it will be hard to determine whether what we see is due to convergence and parallel evolution and what is a direct ancestor. The farther back in time we go, the fuzzier the picture becomes for determining the exact line of descent. Until such time as we can gather more data (ex. Find more fossils) and tease out more DNA, that is just the nature of the science.That doesn’t mean we can’t develop some of the picture of the evolutionary development of humans. For example, we can be reasonably sure that H. heidelbergensis is within our direct line and so isH. erectus, hence their inclusion in the genus Homo. Asserting that a fossil is not within the direct evolutionary line leading to humans is totally different that asserting that there was NO line to begin with.It might help if you could at least acknowledge that. While you are correct that we are still looking for the common ancestor between Chimpanzees and Humans, you are incorrect in asserting that we don’t have intermediates. All those fossil species labeled with the genus Homo are intermediates.It is also wrong for you to claim that we are unable to explain why there are no intermediate species with us today. Basically it comes down to your own incredulity and intransigence.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

Mazzy,I understand that having a bunch of people respond to you can cause certain responses to be ignored or discounted. I would hope that you might negotiate through some of the responses I have offered, as they provide some detail into how anthropologists come to the conclusions they do. The fossil you know of as "Turkana boy", or KNM-WT-15000, is classified as either H. erectus or as H. ergaster. Those anthropologists who feel that H. erectus has enough morphologically differences to seperate it from H. ergaster believe that H. erectus is an offshoot of H. ergaster. Most of those who feel that H. ergaster is seperated morphologically from H. erectus view this species as on the direct line of descent to H. sapiens. Some of their reasons for concluding this might even overlap with your own. Of course, it might behoove you once again to take the time to try and actually study the reasoning behind those ideas and even read some of the scientists papers (not the journalists articles, but the actual scientific papers).If you'd like I can look and see if I can find the original sources for some of those articles you find or have found, so that you can read what the scientists actually say. I am sorry to have to tell you think but your conclusion is erroneous. Determining when exactly the time of the split between chimpanzees and humans happened does not discount that we actually did share a common ancestor at some time. All this is saying is that Toumai might not be in that direct line of descent. It would be like finding out you had a relative who was alive during the time of Copernicus but you don’t know if he was a direct ancestor or your ancestor’s cousin. At one time though, you shared a common ancestor, and isn’t that what matters? Science is tentative and no scientist is saying anything is 100% certain.

First, notice that nobody in the article is stating that evolution did not happen nor does their hypothesis falsify evolution.Second, notice that one of these two scientists making this hypothesis has been saying the same thing for 30 years, even in the face of mounting evidence he is probably wrong.Third, notice that his conclusion would mean we would have to totally revamp our understanding of molecular genetics and thus our evolutionary relationships. Parsimony would suggest that this hypothesis just doesn’t hold water. Whether it is possible that genetic similarities arose [underline]independently[/underline] and that our conclusion that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related is in error, appears to me to be really grasping at straws.Nobody invented convergence in evolution as some ‘get out of jail free’ card. Convergence happens and it doesn’t falsify evolution. In fact it is expected that species might develop convergent morphologies, especially if they share similar niches. For example: The Tasmanian Wolf is a marsupial, but as a top predator it has similar morphologies with placental top predators, such as the North American Wolf. We wouldn’t say they are directly related, as one is placental and one a marsupial, but that doesn’t mean they don’t share a relationship farther down the line of descent. After all, they are both mammals.You’re welcome to come to the conclusion that humans are more related to orangutans than chimpanzees, but that still doesn’t falsify evolution. It might shuffle the deck a bit, but that isn’t inimical to the fact or theory of evolution.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

Only a minority of anthropologists, that I know of, are still suggesting that H. floresiensis was a modern human. Especially considering that they anthropologists have found more fossil bones from different individuals and this does not support the hypothesis that the dwarfism is due to a microcephalic individual. Microcephalipsy is rare and the chances of it striking all those individuals is so astronomical, as to be laughable.That H. floresiensis is an example of dwarfism in H. erectus is our current understanding. That we have the remains of H. erectus (you knowJava Man) in close regional proximity to the remains of H. floresiensis as well as their behavior and remains, including smaller versions of Mode 1 tools that H. erectus was known to have used, leads us to the conclusion that they are directly related. That dwarfism and its opposite, gigantism, happens to species isolated on islands is beyond dispute. Why some might believe it couldn’t have happened to species related to us is beyond me. Your welcome to believe all this, but it doesn’t make it true. No anthropologist is clutching at straws. The conclusions we come to are based on data, and supported by data. That doesn’t mean that we know the whole picture, and I really believe that this is your major beef with the science. 100% certainty can not be found in science. It is built to provide a certain level of likelihood, though, and that provides us with some confidence we are on the right path.You would be amazed at what we can discern from fragments of bones. Knowing the shapes and sizes can tell us a lot about the species in question. It isn’t hocus pocus. Don’t forget, we are all apes. We share derived traits with all apes today.As far as H. erectus is concerned, you’re welcome to place him on the ancestral line leading to apes. It would be nice if you could support your conclusions with data though. That is specific enough that it might even be a good starting point for its own post. I’d even welcome a great debate (one-on-one) with you concerning that specific example.DNA and morphological similarities that Australian Aborigines share with H. sapiens is more than enough to place them in H. sapiens, while the morphological differences between H. ergaster and H. sapiens are plenty for many, if not most, anthropologists to separate Turkana boy from H. sapiens. In other words, the Turkana boy fossil is much farther away from us, morphologically, than Australian aborigines could ever be. The paper does suggest that H. sapiens and H. erectus never inhabited the region together. Pay attention to the word suggest though. The data might be faulty. Even in the case is that it is reasonably assured to be correct, other fossils or artifacts might be found that support the co-existence of H. erectus and H. sapiens. What it doesn’t mean is that they were not related. It doesn’t falsify them being genetic cousins. There is a difference between having no clue and shedding fresh light on a subject. Don’t confuse scientific uncertainty with cluelessness.What the paper suggests is that H. habilis is in the direct line of descent, while H. erectus is an evolutionary offshoot. It suggests that H. erectus did not diverge from h. habilis but rather that they share some more distant common ancestor.Once again, evolution isn’t falsified with this suggestion. It might shed more light on the subject of our direct ancestors though. Would you be willing to enter into a Great Debate concerning your contention that H. erectus belongs in the genus Gorilla rather than on the evolutionary line of Homo?I would gladly debate with you on that point, if you’re willing.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

While cognitive function is not something that fossilizes, the broad understanding is that the larger the brain compared to body size, the more ‘complex’ it is and the more room it has for higher functionality. Brain size compared to body size has steadily increased during hominid evolution. This doesn’t tell the full story though, so one area of research has been investigating the endocasts of extinct hominids to determine what brain structures were present. We see that in Australopithecines, a reduction in the visual cortex of the brain and an enlargement of the parietal lobe, which is the area concerned with spatial organization and social communication. As we get to the brains of H. habilis brain asymmetries can be discerned and the appearance of Broca’s area is distinguished (the area associated with speech/language). H. erectus artifacts have also shown a distinct degree of right handedness, similar to that found with our own species. H. erectus endocranial casts also show it has well developed hemisphere’s, not much different than humans today. Overall, hominid brains also show a more rounded frontal lobe and higher degree of ‘folding’, versus chimps, gorilla’s and orangutans (1a,1b). The frontal lobe is that area most associated with planning, consciousness, abstract thought, and language. Finally, brain asymmetries also indicate development of handedness (right-handed or left-handed) and structures such as Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area, associated with language and speech. In humans, the right hemisphere is linked to emotional systems, visuospatial processing, relational aspects and global dynamics,, while the left side, is often related to learning, analytical and sequential processes, such as the execution and coordination of movements or language organisation (syntax, decoding, producing), discrimination, categorisations and local dynamics Fossil traces of the human thought: paleoneurology and the evolution of the genus HomoWhat does this mean? We must first note that negative evidence is not evidence of a lack. In other words, the lack of an identifiable brain structure through notoriously difficult endocranial reconstructions (considering that many fossils are fragmentary as well as the thickness of the meningal membrane) does not indicate a structure did not necessarily exist. Alternately, the relationships with brain size, asymmetries and morphology can not be seen as conclusive evidence of language, speech, etc.Taken together, though, we can observe an identifiable trend in brain size, asymmetry, and morphology and observe a comparable increase in the complexity of technological artifacts, as well as behavior in the hominid line. H. habilis has been associated with Mode 1 tools which have been found around the same time that they existed but no fossils have been found that could be conclusively associated with those tools. A H. habilis has also been found with a hyoid bone, which is associated with the ability to produce speech. When we get to H. erectus we see definite associations with Mode 1 tools and the development of Mode 2 tools. We also find that they use fire for meat consumption. Such complex behavior and tool manufacturing would seem to indicate that language is also involved. H. heidelbergensis and later hominins show even greater tool sophistication and behavior.As a final note, the absence of identifiable artistic artifacts with many ancestral hominins does not indicate that they did not have that capability. These types of artifacts are notoriously prone to disintegration.

Wrong. If that were the case, then there would have been no need for humans to evolve a larger brain. What is important, though, is allometry and morphology. Fragments can be just as important as having the whole thing. They can tell us a lot about the lifestyle, age, gender, and diet, etc. of the species. For example, teeth can tell us the age of death of the individual, sometimes the gender, what their diet consisted of and/or whether they were omnivore, carnivore, insectivore, frugivore; what region they lived in, something about lifestyle (ie. did they use their teeth to hold onto things, and perhaps what those things were), etc.Other fragments might reveal if they were habitually bipedal or arboreal. You told me before that H. erectus was just another gorilla or ape and H. ergaster was human. Are you now recanting you assertion now that H. erectus is not human or capable of complex tasks? Did you ever just stop and think that perhaps one of the reasons we place in the genus Homo is that they show behavior comperable to us Homo sapiens? They make stone tools from unformed core rocks, sometimes they even use...gasp...flint...and hammer off flakes to use. They use fire hearths for cooking meat and staying warm. They might be apes, like us, but they are something more than just gorillas. Their average brain size is well below ours. Their skull morphology is outside of what we consider to be H. sapiens, but if you want to lump (get it ) them in with us, you'd be following in other anthropologists footsteps (a minority no doubt but ones who support their hypothesis with more than just their opinion).As far as a fire-controlling ape, you're the one who suggested that erectus was more akin to a gorilla. The surprise is not that our evolutionary line can be affected by evolution, obviously. It is a unique surprise that dwarfism has been found effecting a species so close to us. What is also surprising is that brain morphology can allow for a significant reduction in brain size, and still allow for the conservation of behavior. You might be surprised to learn that our brain size has actually declined from what it was some 50 kya. (as a side note: We have become more gracile than our ancestors as well: 20-30% reduction in skeletal/muscle mass since 30 kya, and 10% from just the last 10 kya.) Decreasing brain size does not mean devolving. I thought you were smarter than that.Neanderthals might have had larger brains, but remember what else is important: allometry and morphology. It’s a fabulous muddle isn’t it. Evolution is a remarkable thing, that’s for sure.I’m here to try to help it make sense for you and others. I also hope you realize that I am not trying to convert you to anything. You would have plenty of company. Lot’s of biologists who understand and study evolution are still people of faith. They choose to look at God’s work not deny it.