What if Homo erectus was alive today?

Last year wildlife researchers discovered over 100,000 gorillas in a remote area of the Congo.The fact that 100,000 gorillas could escape humankind's ever searching gaze got me thinking. What if instead of gorillas, the researchers uncovered a population of Homo erectus?The General consensus among anthropologists is that we, Homo sapien sapiens, evolved from Homo erectus less than 2 million years ago (or even less than 1 million years ago if I remember correctly). I realize in order for my hypothetical situation to work my population of Homo erectus would have to have separated and isolated itself. I also understand that whatever selected pressures caused Homo erectus to evolve into Homo sapien would have to be absent from the environment that this isolated population lived in. In anycase, the possibility of a group of Homo erectus existing in the present is not an issue as my discussion only pertains to the hypothetical. Now on to the point...Obviously, a discovery of a living population of Homo erectus would stir up the EvC debate. My question is, would this be the smoking gun of evolution for creationists? If not, what arguments could be made in defense of creationism?After this point has been exhausted, I would like to discuss the human rights implications of a Homo erectus discovery. Would they be afforded human rights? If a group of Homo erectus immigrated to your country, would they be allowed to vote? Get a Job? Would they be treated as animals or some half-way point?Obviously, I'm assuming Homo erectus is less intelligent then our own species, but only slightly. At the upper end of the spectrum, erectus specimens demonstrate cranial capacity that is close to our own. Indeed, if I remember correctly from my anthropology course, some Homo erectus specimen's cranial capacity exceeded Homo sapiens...or was that neanderthalensis? It doesn't matter... In anycase, there is evidence that they made clothes, used primitive stone tools, and may have even utilized fire.Edited by AustinG, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This is untrue. All that is required is isolation.

---

Thanks for the correction; however, my point was that the isolated group of H. erectus would have to meet some kind of equalibrium in their eviromen otherwise they would continue to evolve--not into H. sapiens exactly neccesarely, but maybe another species or sub-species all together.

I like to speculate that Homo erectus would be capable of some sort of primitive culture.Click here to visit archaeologyinfo.com's website about H. erectus for more information.On the page, Kreger discusses specimens with varying cranial capactities--some in the 1000cc range, which is remarkably close to our own of 1350cc. The picture on the page, which I presume to be a picture of H. erectus, is stunning. It gives us an example of what our human ancestors may have looked like.Although H. erectus' ability to form higher culture on its own is questionable, I like to speculate they would have the ability to at least learn culture from us. Culture is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, so I would say they would deserve human rights. I'm not so sure about voting rights though...Its just a strange thing to think about. I'll have to contemplate it a little more.

quote:

---

bluejay: Would interbreeding be a sin, and all children produced, abominations?

---

As far as I know H. erectus and H. sapiens would not be able to interbreed, but this is only speculation.Keep in mind that race has no meaning anthropologically; its cultural creation no grounded in science. Species, on the other hand, do have meaning. I understand your point though, and I would say interbreeding would be very taboo...

I understand what you are trying to say; however

quote:

---

Most anthropologists recognize that race is a social concept, not a biological one. That is, it stigmatizes some individuals as different and reinforces the privileges of others. There is no evidence that there are large groups of biologically distinct human beings (i.e. subspecies) that correspond to what people refer to when they talk about "race." Furthermore, to base any kind of biological category on a single physical characteristic, such as skin color (which, in itself is incredibly varied and determined by multiple genes), is clearly nonsense.

---

and

quote:

---

Most anthropologists no longer take the idea of race seriously. Human populations do differ in some respects in their genetic makeup (e.g. blood types), but there is little use in trying to lump groups into racial groupings based on often, physically meaningless characteristics (e.g. skin pigmentation).

---

Taken from here.For more information on race click below:
American Anthopolical Accociation's Statement on RaceEthnicity and Race in anthropology by Franz BoasEdited by AustinG, : added more sourcesEdited by AustinG, : Added quotes

I'm still trying to come up with a difinitive idea of what it would be like myself. The hardest part is imagening a species of human that is slightly less intelligent then Homo sapiens without picturing the stereotypical caveman depicted in movies. Does anyone have a better imagenation?