Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,438 Year: 3,695/9,624 Month: 566/974 Week: 179/276 Day: 19/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What if Homo erectus was alive today?
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 7 of 49 (510289)
05-29-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Blue Jay
05-29-2009 2:25 PM


I would guess it would depend, in large part, on how "different" they looked. Most people would judge them based on gut reactions, and if they looked to far from the norm for Homo sapiens, they'd be treated as different or "other." If, however, they could pass as humans in a dark, smoky bar, then maybe they'd be afforded more "human" rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Blue Jay, posted 05-29-2009 2:25 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 05-31-2009 11:23 PM Perdition has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 15 of 49 (510559)
06-01-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Blue Jay
05-31-2009 11:23 PM


Re: Procreation
Hi Bluejay,
I think the final test would be whether we could procreate with them.
I wonder how a fundamentalist would feel about that idea.
Would interbreeding be a sin, and all children produced, abominations?
If children are produced, what would prevent us from calling them just another ethnic group, instead of a different species?
And, wouldn't the "abominations" label then simply amount to racial bigotry?
I don't think we could interbreed with them, otherwise, they'd be the same species as us, definitionally. Though, I suppose, we could have infertile children, like horses and donkeys do...
I could all but guarantee, though, that there would be a website dedicated to sapiens/erectus sex, and it would become a fetish pretty quickly.
Fundamentalists would definitely consider any sexual interaction to be an abomination, and there would be debate even among the more liberal religious groups as to whether they had souls and could be saved, or baptised, or whatever. But, if you consider that there are still people who consider black or asian or middle eastern people to be little better than animals, perhaps more would consider erectus to be so, and it could become a heated debate leading to violence, potentially.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 05-31-2009 11:23 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2009 1:57 PM Perdition has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 18 of 49 (510670)
06-02-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
06-01-2009 11:08 PM


Re: Noah was an Erectus, and Erectus built the Babel tower!
Scientists see the change from Home erectus to modern man taking place over some two million years. Creationists generally balk at the idea that evolution can produce new kinds in two million years--or at all--but now are proposing that such change can occur in a couple of thousand years.
Wouldn't this also go against the doctrine of "The Fall" which purports that the only change that can occur is a downward one? Wouldn't most people living, including creationists, consider our current state as being "better" than that of Homo erectus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 06-01-2009 11:08 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2009 1:21 PM Perdition has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 22 of 49 (510688)
06-02-2009 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Blue Jay
06-02-2009 1:57 PM


Re: Procreation
I don't know of a reason to think that they're not the same species as us, other than that archaeology defines them as such.
There would be a number of factors involved: some erectus obviously were in Asia a long time before sapiens evolved in Africa, so these would probably be sufficiently divergent from us to prevent interbreeding. However, those in Africa, which are sometimes called Homo ergaster, a different species, are thought to be our direct ancestors, which means their population would only have diverged from ours about a quarter million years ago. I have no idea whether a quarter million years is enough time to become reproductively isolated.
While the possibility exists that we are the same species, or at least interfertile, I would guess the probability is low.
This was brought up recently on one of the threads dealing with whether humans are still evolving. I would think the amount of time that has elapsed since humans split from Homo erectus, coupled with any changes that would have accumulated in an isolated group of H. erectus living presently would be enough to make them at best minimally compatible, in the same sense as lions and tigers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2009 1:57 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024