https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/homo-erectus-a-bigger-smarter-97879043
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-erectus
1 Like
Not only are you not answering the question, but one of your sources is asking the exact same question I do. Check it out:
" Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Homo erectus that may be answered with future discoveries :
1. Was Homo erectus the direct ancestor of Homo sapiens , our own species?
…"
How do you determine the direct ancestor of any species? Regarding H.erectus, it may have been along the line of direct ancestor. But even H.erectus is an conglomeration of several species. There are certainly several species of humans between H.erectus (1- 2mya) and H.Sapian (<300kya). It is going to very difficult drawing a line from H.erectus and us.
1 Like
That was just what their masters in the labour camps said. “Work sets you free.”
1 Like
At what point does fairy telling become a accepted as science?
I hope the report is not accurate…
Perhaps Homo erectus did not go out searching for good material to make tools for the same reason gorillas don’t… not smart enough.
You can’t, and that’s exactly my point.
…
Not “very difficult” but ‘impossible’. See: Human Evolution debunked
…
The fossil record lends no support for human evolution for several reasons: it is sketchy at best inviting proponents to make whatever desired of it via artistic license, is static hence one must presume evolution to see evolutionary links (the animation movie), and fossils are not positively linked to one another hence likely part of other animation movies altogether. Along the years, we have seen an inflation of hominid “species” as everyone that found a bone or two claimed they discovered a new species. And even after some cleanup, we’re still left with Neanderthals and Denisovans that successfully mated (fertile off-springs) with Sapiens despite being labeled “separate species”.
This is mixing too things. That statement doesn’t really distinguish between whether or not we descent directly from Homo erectus. Rather
- it is identifying a group as Homo erectus.
- Identifying them as “human” too
- Identifying them as different than Sapiens
- Noting their existence long ago
- Noting their non existence now
That is all that is meant by saying they are an extinct primitive human. Of course scientists will usually assert we descent directly from some of them. Though keep in mind that erectus could always be a “cousin” species to our direct ancestor, and the group itself is very disparate.
Of course also special creationists may say they were and independent creations. That still means they are an extinct primitive “human”. Keep in mind that human has no stable definition here.
Also some scientists they are not a distinct species at all, and are really just a chronospecies!
1 Like
Totally valid alternative hypothesis. I was thinking the same thing.
However they are not tellinng a fairy tale. They are adding some value laden language, as a hook, to a popular press account of the scientific paper. Don’t make too much of it.
2 Likes
I get that… however I think it shows things in a bad light. You can’t dum down science to a level where it actually sounds dum…
1 Like
I would agree with that. Usually, ignore the news headline and read the original paper. The nice thing about Science Daily is that they put a link to the original paper. Have you read it yet?
1 Like
I usually do that when I am interested.
1 Like
But sometimes we get lazy like H.erectus. We’re only human. 
1 Like
Ya… it’s impossible to read everything… not enough time…
A large part of growing up is being able to decide what to shelve and what to pursue …
1 Like
Me, I’m off looking for decent bits of flint for my tools. Only rubbishy chert round here. You won’t find going extinct any time soon.
2 Likes
Last I checked, ‘humans’ is taxonomically ‘Homo sapiens’.
No one would care about “lazy ape” and even less about “lazy bear”, etc.
1 Like
Nope. No settled meaning of “human” in science. Most lean towards saying all in Homo genus are human.
1 Like
That’s not surprising considering the concept is primarily sociological…It’s a collective identity.
1 Like
Sure, if they cannot positively demonstrate a link, at least they can play with the definition. And while at it, why not call humans ‘animals’, get rid of genders, conflate AI with humans, and define science to be in conflict with religion? Already done you say? Isn’t “Science” wonderful? Quickly someone build a gold statue to “Science” and start worshiping it.
1 Like
The rule is Human = All species in Homo unless otherwise stated. You’ll see some papers say things like, " In this review when I speak of humans, i am referring to H. sapiens." Atleast that’s how I’ve been taught and what I’ve experienced.
If that is a rule, it is very recent. In the literature the meaning of “human” is very unstable, sometimes appearing to take on more than one meaning in a single paper.