Featured In

This Issue

According to evolutionists, Homo erectus was a separate species which evolved into Homo sapiens—even though the theory has been embarrassed by the finding of erectus and sapiens fossils in the same evolutionary time-sectors.

More and more creationist writers are pointing out that there is a wide range of variation among fossil human skulls, and that well defined specimens of H. erectus (along with Neanderthals, etc.) do not represent any sort of evolutionary sequence, but are part of the spectrum of variation. They should therefore be classified as the same species as modern man, Homo sapiens.

Now prominent evolutionist paleoanthropologists, Milford Wolpoff and Alan Thorne, have unwittingly supported this creationist contention. (They favour the ‘multiregional hypothesis’ as opposed to the more popular ‘out-of-Africa’ view of human evolution—see Creation, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 20–23.)

Having carefully studied specimens of erectus and sapiens they ‘could not find any anatomical markers that consistently separated Homo erectus from Homo sapiens.’ They therefore maintain that all such fossil specimens, and also the ‘archaic’ Homo sapiens as well as the Neanderthals, should all be reclassified into one species, Homo sapiens, with the differences being on the level of racial variation.

They also studied so-called Homo habilis, a group which many evolutionists argue should really be lumped together with the australopithecines such as ‘Lucy’. There were indeed consistent differences between these and the erectus/sapiens groups as creationists would also argue.

Computer analysis by evolutionary experts has long shown that the unique, extinct australopithecine/habiline group was anatomically more distinct from both apes and humans (see The Revised Quote Book, p. 14) than these two are from each other.

They are therefore not intermediate and not in the human line.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.