Joined: Oct. 2005
|I'll take a little time to critique your claims on "hominids " first, szweda. You're sadly uninformed on multiple levels here. Additionally, I'll be "fisking" ( critiquing point-by-point) some of your claims later.|
| In total there are only about 1,400 hominid skulls that have been found, of which about 700 come from Magaliesberg region of Africa. |
Where did you get that quote from? I'd LOVE to know the source of it. Provide it, since you saw fit to use it. Don't fail to do that, since your claims rest on it.
(1) A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"), including the extinct and extant humans ( Homo sapiens, H. erectus, H. Neanderthalensis and H. habilis) , chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Are you insane in claiming that we only have 1700 skulls of H. sapiens sapiens available?
The Magliesberg mountain range is in South Africa, where Phil Tobias invited me to work. There are caves near there that have produced examples of Australopithecus africanus, such as Sterkfontein and Kromdraai, Swartkrans and Makapansgatt -- but I challenge you to find me 700 **whole** skulls from these locales in the Magliesberg.
Or do you mean fragments? If you want to include cranial fragments, calvaria, teeth, post-cranial remain, etc, you'd have a lot more than that, but I'm curious why you think A. africanus remains constitute more than half the number of your TOTAL claimed "hominid" remains.
|Most early hominid species come from very few bone fragments and most features are developed as a result of indirect evidence. Most of all of the early and mid hominids and many of the late hominids are based on just a few bones. Forget full skeletons. Yet with great certainty of a jaw bone and 3 teeth we can determine that they were a hominid and they went extinct due to X,Y,Z..... The chimpanzees still exist so why don't we see any homo sapiens neanderthalensis around. |
Gee,Szweda, thatt's a lot of jumping around and running-together of issues you just did in that "paragraph" First of all, you're wrong that early hominid species such as H. Habilis and H. erectus and Neandertalensis are based on " a few bones" which you then try to compare to " a jaw and three teeth" . This is an utter lie, Szweda.
We have hundreds of examples of Neanders and H. erectus. HUNDREDS...not "a jaw and three teeth" https://nespos-live01.pxpgroup.com/display/openspace/Site+List
As to why neanders are extinct and chimps are not, well, maybe you might want to look at where each existed/exists. You think environment might have something to do with it? Like rain forests being easier to become isolated and "hide" in?
|Neanderthalensis and sapien sapien exists together for at least 150,000 years. |
Well, let's see...the earliest DEFINITIVELY KNOWN neander that I can think of is from about 130,000 years ago...and neanders die off (I'll be generous) 28KYA ago...uh, your math seems to be off, not that THAT alone is important. Care to cite sources?
|Ramapithecus was based on a few teeth, which 20 years later is beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate. |
Uh, I hate to break this to you, goober, but it was always thought of as an extinct primate. The only question was if it was in the human ancestral lineage. And the INITIAL find of Ramapiths was not MERELY based on a few teeth, but upper jaw fragments as well, in 1932. Since then lots more cranial and post-cranial remains have been found, and it has largely been "lumped in" with the Sivapiths.
This final quote is the one that really tells me about your willingness to bulshit, szweda:
|Even Homo Erectus was basically only classified to be an earlier hominid because of it's cranial capacity. Essentially three skulls are being used to create a new species, when it has been easily shown that the cranial capacity of Homo Erectus fits into the cranial capacity of some European groups. |
1) Erectus was not classified as a non-H. sapiens sapiens based only on cranial capacity. This is an utter lie. I suggest you read about Dubois, Davidson Black, Leakey, Weidenreich, and perhaps the work of one of my department profs, Gail Kennedy.
2) The notion that 3 skulls alone are what created a new taxon and continue to support the validity of that taxon is shameful.
3) you said the average cranial capacity of erectus matches the cranial capacity of "some European groups." Can you name one? I'd love to see your reference on that. Please don't fail to provide THAT data, either. Homo erectus had a brain (950 to 1200 cc, avg. 1020 cc ) which is about 75% of the size of that of a modern human, on average. Even WIKIPEDIA of all things, gets THAT right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus So, show me this population of modern europeans that has a 1020 cc average cranial capacity.
If you really think that "cranial capacity " is all that differentiates erectus from sapiens sapiens ( you and me) then talk to me about cortical thickness, dentition, prognathism, postorbital constriction with supraorbital sulcus, pentagonal-shaped skull with a nuchal ridge, and all the other MANY diagnostic traits associated with H. erectus. See G. Philip Rightmire. (1992) The Evolution of Homo Erectus: Comparative Anatomical Studies of an Extinct Human Species, Cambridge University Press and Narikotome Homo Erectus Skeleton available at : http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/WALNAR.html
And for those that want to actually view hominid and hominoid fossil material, here are some links, perhaps sweda might get a clue from some of these, but I doubt it, given what is pretty evident willingness to engage in AFDave-like twisting of fact and blindness.
Images of erectus skulls, narikotome
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2%20.htm erectus morphology