Information about how Homo Erectus, Neandethal Man, and Cro Magnon Man are wrong?
552192
How in the world can skeletons be wrong.  I can see actual theories being potentially wrong, because they're just that, theories.  But skeletons?  You can't fake that stuff and get away with it these days!\n\nHowever, in the interests of the question, I'll attempt to find something.\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html -- Definitely in support of the whole "homo erectus was a hominid" thing, but it gives a brief statement as to why creationists USED to use "Java Man" as an example of why they weren't anywhere near hominid.  Interesting.\n\nThis is an interesting list from the "Answers in Genesis" website listing arguments that they don't think creationists SHOULD use in support of creationism.  I wonder what they would say these things do support... http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp#java_man\n\nThis is an article on why the genes of the ancient hominids and ours are related. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegene.htm\n\nThis article verifies that scientists have found that homo erectus was a widespread and thoroughly homogenous species that was an obvious precursor to ours: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020325080853.htm\n\nOkay, I think that this article says that they (all of the human fore-species) can all be considered the same species but in different stages of development.  Is that what you were looking for? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp\n\nHere's more information on Homo Erectus: http://anthropology.net/tags/homo_erectus\n\nHere is an article about Neandertals from the Answering Genesis website: https://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/neandertal.asp\n\nHowever, this article explains the exaggerations that creationists often make in regards to how close the relationship between Neandertals and modern humans is: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html\n\nAnd here is an article on a breakthrough in mapping out the DNA of the Neandertals that states that they were most definitely a different species from the hominids of the time and from us!  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wolpoff/Papers/Concocting.PDF#search='neandertal%20AND%20wrong'\n\nI couldn't find anything saying that it was wrong that Cro Magnon man were our closest ancestors; in fact, even the creationists were quiet on that one.  I think it's because Cro Magnon traits can still be seen today, so it's a little hard to disprove.\n\nI hope this helped answer your question, although I'm not sure if I interpreted it correctly or not.
26567
THE OLDEST FOSSILS OF MODERN HUMAN  HOMO ERECTUS WERE FOUND IN OLDUVAI GORGE BY THE LEAKEYS .  I BELIEVE IT IS IN SUDAN,  OR ETHIOPIA.
1144143
I agree...men didn't come from apes!
297158
Genus Humanus, and the Homo Sapien designation for modern man...but there are others, check the link below.
1009275
don,t worry some zealot will interpret the words of the bible to fit his beliefs-----dinosaurs existed and darwin was right---you can interpret the words in the bible or any religious book to fit your views---i believe there is a god---but not all the different gods that all these different religions describe---all those books were written by men!!!--they are not the words of god--they are the words of weak men-trying to get control of the people around them----it worked--
996471
Yes there are at least two other sub-species of H sapiens. Naturally, there is debate on this in scientific circles. What you teacher was referring to was H sapiens neanderthalis (the neanderthals), H sapiens sapiens (modern humans) and H sapiens floriensis (the so-called hobbit found on the island of Flores in Indonesia). Recently some Neanderthal DNA from a 30,000 year old leg bone has been sequenced and it appears Neanderthals may be reclassified to H neanderthalis. There's no DNA yet available from the Flores hobbit but some scientists are saying it's a subspecies of H erectus, not H. sapiens. We'll have to wait and see on that one.\n\nPS, you're right. Human evolution is a fascinating area! Well done for doing the course. Maybe you should do a degree in molecular biology!!
1071385
I think they were killed in the flood, but have you ever read (I think) in Job about the leviathan?  Sounds so much like a brontesaurus or dipladucas doesn't it?  People try to say it's a croc, but it's  nothing like a crocodile.  Also Psalms 74 says He lopped off the heads (plural) of leviathan, and made mincemeat of the dragon.  I'm not trying to make people believe anything, it's just one of the things I wonder.
351352
The genus is Homo, in the family Hominidae.  An example of another genus in the Hominidae is Australopithecus.\n\nAs far as how many species have been placed in the genus Homo, it depends on how much of a splitter or lumper you are.\n\nThere are some paleoanthropologists who would place every single fossil ever found in its own species.  Some of them would probably split each fossil into twenty or thirty species if they could figure out how to get a paper out of it.\n\nOthers will lump everything as a single species unless there's a compelling reason to define a new species.  Invertebrate palaeontologists usually need dozens if not hundreds of individual specimens before they can make a case for proposing a new species, let alone a new genus.  Those who study human palaeontology have a tendency to completely rework the entire family tree with each and every minimal find.\n\nThis is partially a consequence of working in a high profile field with lots of public interest and media opportunities with more academic scholars than there are actual fossils, but it does tend to create a bad image of wishy washery and flim flammery for the profession, and fosters an inaccurate view of how most palaeontology is actually done.\n\nPretty much everyone agrees there are at least three species of Homo:  \n\nHomo habilis lived in East Africa, and is associated with the first undisputed stone tools.\n\nHomo erectus moved out of Africa, and into Asia, getting as far as Java (aka Java man) and China (aka Peking man)\n\nHomo sapiens probably moved out of Africa again, actually reaching Europe.\n\nHomo sapiens neandertalensis was a specialized European subspecies with various adaptations for living in harsh ice age conditions.\n\nHomo sapiens sapiens is another subspecies that developed in southern Africa about 100,000 years ago and moved out of Africa again to take over all the areas previously inhabited by Homo erectus, killed off or interbred with previous Homo sapiens groups (including Homo sapiens neandertalensis) and even reached Australia, North America, South America, and even New Zealand and the South Pacific Islands.\n\nThere may have been another species Homo floriensis, a pygmy species that lived on perhaps a handful of southeast Asian islands.  This is the guy touted as the "Hobbit man" last year.  Unfortunately the fossils were smashed in transit (the scientist who proposed the "Hobbit" blames his fellow researcher, while the other researcher who thinks the fossils are just a standard midget human blames the first researcher) and the Indonesian government has refused further research permits.\n\nSo three definite species in the Genus Homo, several subspecies and at least one possible other species.
16888
In the respect of survival instincts, yes.\nArtist's renditions show a seemingly larger cranial capacity/cranium so your argument would be true.\nIntelligence like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder or in this case the user.\nI doubt that no modern man could survive in Cro-Magnon Man's Era, meaning he would be less intelligent as to the norms of the time.\nI would like a debate on Technology versus Survival.\nSorry for the Rant Batman, but you pose some interesting questions.
860914
♥♪♦♫ yes it was said that humans are oringinated from the ape family. I hope that I have helped you.♥♪♦♫
912794
That's a great question, esp. since creationists have tried to co-opt evolution to an extent, by saying "Oh, God just took longer than the Bible says" and other claptrap.\n\nI'm not a creationist, but am more interested in the new info on Neanderthals (I majored in Anthropology). Can you add some details to the question and give links to articles? I'd really like to read them! I'm rather behind the times regarding new discoveries, and the Discover Channel's programs about it are SO questionable! I've got to read more!(I'm serious).\n\n***********\n\nThanks---for the links! Can you believe some of the whacko ideas people have? You'd think it hadn't been 150 yrs. since Neanderthal was first found!
101290
A few points need to be cleared up.\n\n1) We don't know that Neanderthals were a separate species. We know that they left no female line descendants, which is not at all the same thing. There were thoroughly modern human populations in Australia that also left no female line descendants. The evidence suggests they were a different species, but it is a long way from conclusive,\n\n2) Neanderthals weren't pushed away. Modern humans and Nenderthals lived side by side for 20, 000 years or more. Neadnderthals were gradually replaced by modern humans but there is no evidence of them being pushed aside.\n\n3) In reference to Jeremie's claim that humans massacred Nedanderthals, there is no evidence to support such a claim. There has never been a Neanderthal body disocvered with human arrow or spearheds in it or vice versa. Remember, these groups had distinct technologies so if massacres were common we would probably find the evidence. More important is the timeframe for co-existence. If Neanderthals were bieng subject to regular violence they should have vanished rapidly from contact zones. Yet we don't see  that. INsrtead we see inplaces like Isreal that the two populations lived side by side. Which brings us to the next point.\n\n4) There was probably no overt racial discrimination involved in the disappearance of the Neanderthals. As I've ponted out, they co-existed for millenia apparenbtly peacefully. Insetad the Neanderthals appear to have simply lost the reproductive game. For whatever reason they bred slower and/or or recovered slower from catastrophe. Over time the numbers appear to have simply dwindled. The situation between Neanderthals and humans is more akin to the situation with Amish and non-Amish Americans. For the most part the populations co-exist peacefully, but the Amish population does not grow as fast as the majority population. \n\nThe Amish may survive because there is little resoucre competeition. In a situation where the populations compete (not fight) for food and other resources the smaller population will always lose out simply because the ststitsical chance of any person in their group finding a resource is much smaller.\n\n4) By no stretch of the imagination were all Neanderthals the same race. Neanderthals covered a large range, stretching from Islrael and presumably North Africa through western Europe all the way to Asian Russia. That gave them a comparable range to H. sapiens at that time.\n\nNorthern and far Eastern Neanderthals were quite different to modern humans, being short and thick set with protruding, flat noses. In contrast the Middle Eastern Neanderthals had no single features to distinguish them from the modern humans they lived side by side with. They were short bymodern standards, but many were much taller than thuamns in the same area. they tended to be muscular, but many were slim. Their facial features covered a whole spectrum but even themost extreme of them looke dlike some people who are alive today. \n\nIOW the Neanderthals themselves were racially dividied.\n\n\n5) Neanderthals sure didn't die out because of the Ice Age. Neanderthals were a cold adpated species. We are the tropical branch of humanity.  The Neanderthals lived through several the ice ages and thrived. It was only when the last ice age abated and us tropical humans managed to move into Europe that they started to deline.
777497
LOL sorry I wasn't aware of that relic. Has it been scientifically studied? Or is it off limits to everyone like the ark in ethiopia?\nHell, we could do that, then implant it in a virgin and bingo, homemade holyman. I guess scientists work in mysterious ways too. LOL
1150866
your avatar makes you look like a descendant of the neanderthal man,\nAnyway if you men Erect as in Erection my bet would be on Solomon. I mean the man had more concubines  than he could remember and am sure he must have at one time slept with almost all of them since they were referred to as concubines in the first place, also if the neanderthal man had more erection he would still be around till this day. \n\nBut if you men Erect as in Upright, i will also say Solomon or maybe it would be the neanderthal man because Solomon would have spent a great number of his days Servicing one of his numerous concubines so that would mean he had to be in the sleeping position most of the time
252248
Homo habilis is in between the two but I am not very sure.\nModern man, that is you and me are Homo sapiens sapiens and we are not Homo erectus.
569422
I have just been researching the churh and the book.I think if you go to http://thebaldchemist.blogspot.com  you will find the answer.\nKeep questioning.\nAboriginals were not considered to be human by the early missionaries. Probably still dont.
1337
The Jews built them when they went into slavery. Take a close look at egyptian art...you can see these bald guys with their bearded slaves..\n\nAnyone want to disprove that?