Creationist Arguments: Homo erectus
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/homs/a_erectus.html
The only Homo erectus fossils mentioned by many creationists (Huse, 1983;
Morris and Parker, 1982; Taylor, 1992) are the Java Man and Peking Man
fossils (discussed in the following sections). Most creationists consider
both apes, although Lubenow (1992) considers both human. There are even a
few creationists who consider Java Man an ape and Peking Man a human,
despite the fact that many books stress their very close similarity.

A few authors do mention other erectus fossils in passing. Morris suggests,
although it is not clear which specimens he is referring to, that they are
degenerate humans:

     "It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat
     degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding,
     poor diet and a hostile environment" (Morris, 1974).

Gish (1985) suggests that many erectus fossils would have been attributed to
Neandertal Man were it not for their supposed age, and hence probably also
considers the erectus morphology, like that of the Neandertals, to be caused
by disease.

There is no explanation of why these adverse conditions would cause H.
erectus to be so physically powerful, and in fact many erectus may have been
of average human size (see the entry on the Turkana Boy fossil). Nor is it
explained why all human skulls over 500,000 years old are erectus, and why,
given the number of modern people who face a poor diet and a hostile
environment, no erectus specimens are found nowadays.

Bowden (1981) briefly discusses ER 3733, but so vaguely that it is difficult
to determine whether he thinks it is an ape or a human! This fossil, despite
massive brow ridges and other primitive features, is so complete and looks
so human that it seems unlikely anyone would call it an ape (and no other
creationists have done so). It seems equally unlikely that Bowden would call
it a human, since he acknowledges its similarity to the Peking Man skulls
which he claims are apes, and all of which are larger than 3733. Bowden
escapes this dilemma by instead casting aspersions on the accuracy of ER
3733's reconstruction (almost all other creationists solve it by not
mentioning ER 3733).

Bowden's even briefer mention of OH 9 is just as cryptic. He notes its
similarities to both Pithecanthropus [ape] and a Neandertal [human] skull.
In one sentence he refers to it as "surprisingly advanced", but the next
paragraph starts: "Reviewing all these fossil apes, ...". Bowden's
description of OH 9 makes it sound so intermediate in nature between apes
and humans that, once again, it is difficult to decide what he thinks it is.

One Homo erectus specimen, the Turkana Boy, is recognized by Gish as human.
Unavoidably, since it is an erectus skull attached to a body that is almost
completely modern. Gish (1985), writing soon after it was discovered,
cautiously suggests that except for the brain size, all major aspects of the
skeleton are within the limits of Homo sapiens, and that were it not for the
estimated age of 1.6 million years it would be assigned to that species.
That is incorrect; the Turkana Boy has a typical erectus skull, differing
from modern humans in many aspects other than brain size. It is more similar
to 1470 (H. habilis), or to other erectus specimens such as the Peking Man
braincases, than it is to modern humans. The skeleton also has a number of
minor differences from those of modern humans.

Other creationists have been less cautious. Menton takes Gish's suggestions
as fact, stating firmly that the Turkana Boy was a modern human, and then
saying that:

     "He had a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges not unlike some
     races of modern man. Richard Leaky [sic] said that this boy would
     go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Menton, 1988)

Menton has taken this quote out of context, omitting some text that
significantly changes its meaning:

     "Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and
     beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today."
     (Leakey and Walker, 1985)

Lubenow (1992) has argued that Homo erectus is similar enough to H. sapiens
that it should be merged into it. For example, he quotes Wolpoff et
al.(1984):

     "In our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit
     that the Homo erectus/Homo sapiens boundary is arbitrary and use
     nonmorphological (i.e. temporal) criteria for determining it, or
     Homo erectus should be sunk [into Homo sapiens]."

Wolpoff and his colleagues support what is known as the multiregional
theory, which holds that populations of H. erectus throughout the world
evolved in synchrony towards H. sapiens (as opposed to the "out of Africa"
theory, which holds that one population of H. erectus gave rise to all
modern humans).

Wolpoff et al. are not saying that H. erectus cannot be distinguished from
modern humans; in fact they admit that it "on the average shows clear
morphological distinctions from Homo sapiens". They propose sinking H.
erectus into H. sapiens because there are so many intermediate fossils that
it is difficult to define a boundary between them, and because there are
theoretical reasons for considering them to be the same species if H.
sapiens did not branch off from a subset of the H. erectus population.

Most scientists disagree, believing that the differences are clearly enough
to merit a species distinction. A growing number would go further, and argue
that there is room for another species between them, Homo heidelbergensis,
which would contain many of the fossils now called archaic Homo sapiens
(Tattersall, 1995). It is also far from certain that the multiregional
theory is correct, in which case even the theoretical reasons for sinking H.
erectus would disappear.

 This page is part of the Fossil Hominids FAQ at the talk.origins Archive.
END***************************************************************************