Hi Big_Al35, what's up with the non-responses? Feeling boxed in? Piled on?
... You have already showed me two pictures of homo erectus which you now admit are different. ...
But why would you expect two different fossils to be exactly the same -- particularly after going on at length about variations within modern humans.
variations through evolution, and the more time and distance between fossils the more variation is possible.
would be surprised if there was NO
difference. What we are curious about is what differences YOU see from looking at pictures. For instance ...
: Let's take it a step at a time: can you tell me what the obvious differences are between these two pictures:
It is a simple question, yes?
... was a bit of a trick question: these are pictures of exactly the same fossil (one is an accurate, detailed plastic model of the other), and any apparent differences are due to camera angle. If you doubt me look at the crack lines on the nose bridge, the cheekbones, the top of the right eye, the teeth and the teeth sockets.
Now I expect that the "obvious differences" you mentioned are also due in part to these camera angles -- especially when you compare pictures from different sources.
This is why Coyote stresses using a matrix of data obtained from detailed measurements of the skulls, not cursory glances at photos.
... You also now admit that one of the erectus images might be better classified as habilis. ...
BZZT!!! WRONG AGAIN. What I said was:
: Based on these criteria alone you might ask why it is not classified as Homo habilis
Note that I specifically said that YOU
might ask ... based on only two pieces of information (age and cranial capacity) ... and this is because you apparently are not very well informed about how fossils are classified, and think that you looking at pictures can tell as much as Coyote can from looking at the actual fossil and the complete set of data that has been collected regarding this fossil when this is his particular field of study. Rather than bluster on you should pay attention to Coyote and ask questions about aspects that you do not understand.
That chart is not used to classify fossils, but to catalog the variations in cranial capacity of the fossil specimens.
The fact is that when you compare ALL
the features, the similarities as well as the differences, this fossil is a better match to Homo erectus
than to Homo habilis
, yet different enough from the main group of Homo erectus
fossils to be classed as a subspecies -- Homo erectus georgicus
See Message 232
for a list of other subspecies.
Wiki article on Homo erectus again:
... an extinct species of hominid that lived from the end of the Pliocene epoch to the later Pleistocene, about 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago. ...
That's ~500,000 years, while Homo sapiens
(including subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens
and other subspecies) have only existed ~200,000 years. It would be astonishing if they did not have some variations between early samples and late sample and between african samples and asian samples.
Again, we expect
variations through evolution, and the more time and distance between fossils the more variation is possible. We also expect
similarities between late Homo habilis
and early Homo erectus
when one evolves into the other. The chart also shows this kind of blending between all species on the chart.
... You claim to see no differences and yet you admit these differences. ...
Who has said that? What we have asked you is what differences YOU see between them and what differences you see between them and Homo sapiens
You were the one that claimed that they fell under the range of variation seen in modern humans.
... You now claim that shop replicas are virtually fraudulent copies. ...
Not at all: those copies are very accurate right down to the break lines in the skulls. The only
obvious difference between the photos is camera angle, so that the size of the cranium appears
... You claim that the lower jaw is a key difference when assessing fossils against modern man ...
Again, this is incorrect. The lower jaw provides information certainly (when available - same with the teeth), but the major information comes from the parts that can be compared 1 to 1, and not from how complete the image is or how you look at it in a photo.
... but show me a bunch of images where the lower jaw is missing. ...
The picture in question:
... has intentionally
deleted jaws (not all fossils have them), and presented the fossils from the same point of view for the frontal and profile views, so that people like you will not be distracted from comparing actual differences.
Look at them carefully: can you pick out Homo erectus georgicus
? Put your hand over the jaw on the second picture above, look at the teeth, eyebrows, etc.
... I think you should think carefully about making judgements about these fossils and before submitting your next post. Good luck.
Curiously, what this really shows is that you are not properly equipped -- either by education or personal investigation -- to understand what people have been saying, what they have been showing you, and what they have been asking you about. You need to do more than just make a couple of cursory observations and make some unspecified internet research (presumably of creationist websites).
Now I suggest you go ask Coyote, humbly, for some advice on what you need to study in order to learn some basic understanding of this field.
Edited by RAZD, : trick question