"If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"

look again

Apart from some differences with the teeth I don't see the distinction you wish to draw either, perhaps if you actually told us what your reasons were rather than expecting us to guess we could address them more readily.It is worth noting that both your image and the one in RAZD's line up of skulls are from the Dmanisi site finds, the authors of one paper (Vekua, et al. 2002) describing some of the finds (specifically the skull in RAZD's line up) make these observations in the abstract ... So we might expect to see some more primitive features in the Dmanisi skulls than in other examples of Homo erectus.TTFN,WK

Hi Big Al,The shared characteristics of the Homo erectus skulls are prominent brow ridges and cheek bones, and there must be others that are less obvious, but I'm not an anthropologist. The skull you presented is actually a subspecies known as Homo erectus georgicus, you can find it described in the Wikipedia article on Homo erectus.What people are wondering is not only if the differences between Homo erectus and modern humans are apparent to you, but also if you accept that it is far outside the range of variation of modern humans.And are you going to respond to the cranial capacity data you requested?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Ahhh...so you do see some differences then. It appears anyone can just dig up any old set of bones and within limits claim that it is homo erectus. Not very scientific!

Says the creationist hehehe

No, that only happens in the Christian Cult of Ignorance {Unenlightenment} {Unintelligence} {Unknowledgable}.In science they must supply evidence to support their position.But again, what does any of your rabbit hole bullshit have to do with the topic?

Hi Big Al,You're not really addressing anything in any of the responding messages. You're not responding to what people say, and you're not describing what it is in the images that you find different or similar. I'm reduced to doing what RAZD has been doing, cut-n-pasting my previous post and hoping you respond someday:The shared characteristics of the Homo erectus skulls are prominent brow ridges and cheek bones, and there must be others that are less obvious, but I'm not an anthropologist. The skull you presented is actually a subspecies known as Homo erectus georgicus, you can find it described in the Wikipedia article on Homo erectus.What people are wondering is not only if the differences between Homo erectus and modern humans are apparent to you, but also if you accept that it is far outside the range of variation of modern humans.And are you going to respond to the cranial capacity data you requested?--Percy

Within limits you can look at any animal and claim that it's a giraffe. The limits would be that it's actually a giraffe.

You realize, don't you, that the color of the fossils and the fact that the first specimen has no jawbone are not morphologically diagnostic characteristics?

Thing is nature and evolution does not work the way you think it does it does not put things in neat little boxes.Say you see someone that has skin webbing between his fingers is he still human or is he alredy homo sapiens natator (swimmer)Say that this child is born on an island and slowly this trait of webbed fingers becomes domminant in the population because it allows them to swimm better and collect more food thus having more wives and more children....Are they now homo sapiens natatorSay a noter child is borne whitin this population that has gills or gill like organs allowing him to breathe under waterIs he now homo sapiens natatorAnd when the population of this island all have gills or gill like organs are they now homo sapiens natator?And if a group of these people decide to rather stay under watter because its more productive or whatever and evolve under the same pressure of better swimming more offspring at what point do they cease to be homo sapiens and become homo sapiens natator

Do you really think that going to an online shop that sells replicas of fossils, then copy and pasting an image of a random skull you find there is any substitute at all for actual knowledge?There are real scientists that spend their entire lives working on these things; there's an enormous body of scientific study supporting what is said about human evolution and you think that you can google a single image and form a reasoned opinion that they're all wrong?I can see you nodding and grinning right now.

It wasn't me who googled the first image, it was RAZD. If you can't see the differences between the two images (frako and RAZD) then I can't really help you. You need an optician!

Hi Big Al,Let's put the three Homo erectus skulls alongside the human skull: The three Homo erectus skulls have a great deal in common, most notably the large brow ridges, prominent cheekbones and small chin. The one with the large canines is a subspecies of Homo erectus, but it still has large brow ridges, prominent cheekbones and small chin. None of these qualities are possessed by the human skull.The question on everyone's mind is whether you can see the differences between the Homo erectus skulls and the human skull.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

And if your ability to use English is so feeble that you are unable to describe the differences that you see then we really can't help you. You need an education!

Hi once again Big_Al35,One wonders how many times you will dodge the issues that you raise when they are answered. What you asked was: Now clearly you either think (a) that they are all Homo sapiens sapiens and thus ALL were already covered in the chart provided -- in which case your question is simply pointless -- or (b) that some of them were omitted from the categtory Homo Sapiens Sapiens -- in which case I've asked you to identify which ones would not fall under the Homo Sapiens Sapiens category on the chart.It is a simple question, trying to clarify your position. Aw playing the persecuted Christian card already?All I asked was a simple question: which ones you did not consider to be Homo Sapiens Sapiens, -- ie which ones you felt were omitted from that category on the chart (implying discrimination by the chart makers) -- and if you simply reply that they are all Homo sapiens sapiens then we can look at that category on the chart and see the range of skull capacities involved, without needing to discriminate.Of course we also see that your question was pointless and just another attempt to avoid dealing with the information provided to you. Can you point out those differences? Is one of them human and one not? Or are both within the range of modern humans as you claimed of the skulls in the picture (in which case your reply to frako is also pointless)? So is that a skull you feel is human (within the range of modern humans)?Where do you think it fits in the picture (once again): Please note that your skull is not an actual fossil, but a plastic model with the jaw shown (jaws are all removed from the photos to make comparisons easier). Here's a picture of the fossil:

quote:

---

Dmanisi hominins - Wikipedia Fossil skull from Dmanisi.

---

Care to comment on any differences between your picture of the plastic model and mine of the actual fossil?Are there differences? Nose, jaw, eyebrows, teeth, cranium? Curiously, we have Wounded King saying that there is some variation in the teeth between two specimens and you taking this to mean that they are arbitrarily combined into one species, while at the same time claiming that ALL the skulls on the picture are within the range of modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens (seeing as you have not yet told us which ones you think are not in that category -- where you draw the line).Where do you think the Homo erectus skull shown by frako fits in the picture? Is it before or after yours? What features do you use to tell?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : completedEdited by RAZD, : engls