Did Darwinists Jump the Gun? Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus, Found Living in Parallel Harmony, Not in Evolutionary Succession! A Blow Against Evolution?
Darwin had a brilliant idea, but was it brilliantly wrong? Homo habilis-2.4 M- 1.6 M, Homo erectus, 1.6 M-0.3 M, living unexpected parallel lives, not in evolutionary succession, Anthropologist Professor Emeritus Pete Bagnolo is on target with unorthodox prediction again, Darwin set about outlining his theory to everyone. Others ran with it. He made a great discovery and I will have more to say about the technical aspects of it later. Read it ALL, please! In the first years after the discovery of Homo habilis, some scientists rejected its validity, feeling that all specimens should be classified either to the genus Australopithecus or to Homo erectus. Now, however, H. habilis is widely, though not unanimously, accepted as a species in its own right. From the fossil evidence, Homo habilis was active from before 2.3/2.6 million, to 1.6 million years ago, and Homo erectus, 1.8 Million years BP-.03 Million years BP. However, some persist in believing that the fossil evidence is too thinly spread and weak, too fragmented and extended over too vast a time to justify its genus classification. Some H. habilis specimens with uncharacteristically massive features: Brows, braincases, teeth, etc. are often classified as Homo rudolfensis. The average male H. habilis is thought to have been about five feet tall and 100 pounds (females about 20% smaller). Homo habilis, (meaning "handy man") was so named because of the vast quantity of tools that have been found with its fossils. The average H. habilis braincase was considerably larger than that of Australopithecus', and its ostensive shape is more like H. Sapiens. The bulge of Broca's area (brain segment), necessary for speech, is visible in one H. habilis' brain cast, making him possibly capable of some crude form of speech. Those questionable species from my college days, Homo habilis, and Home Erectus have come home to roost, as I predicted as a graduate student and more recently on one of my blogs, circa, 2006, (see blog at): http://bagnolosprophetics.blogspot.com/2006/10/thus-saith-lord.html These two fossils found in Kenya have shaken the human family tree, possibly rearranging major branches thought to be in a straight ancestral, evolutionary line to Homo sapiens. Homo erectus was palpably unlike H. habilis and all of the other Australopithecus species, in that it ranged far beyond Africa. In some cases, scientists have divided H-erectus into three species using the unearthed specimens geographic region, re: H. heidelbergensis (Europe). Homo ergaster (Africa), H. erectus (Asia) some even believe heidelbergensis specimens to be archaic H. sapiens as the gauge for divisions. Generally, H. erectus, in comparison to Homo sapiens (us) possessed larger molars, a long, a low skull, heavy brow ridges, and a receding chin. The skeletal structure of H. erectus was heavier, more powerful/robust, than ours, so were muscle insertions. However, a few arm/leg bones of "Peking Man" indicate a shorter, stockier build, however, another specimen, "Turkana Boy" (Estimated age: 1.6 million years, date of discovery: 1984) was tall and slender, very much like modern humans from the same district. This almost Choate skeleton of a 9- to 12-year-old boy remains one of the oldest- specimens of H. erectus, yet unearthed. He was about 5 feet 3 inches tall when he died, projecting full growth, might have topped out at about 6'-1" upon maturity. Is The Two-Disconcerting Specimen, A Contradiction of Darwin? The two disconcerting specimen, have been analyzed, dated and defined by Scientists at: Homo habilis 1.4-million BP, and a Homo erectus at 1.5 Million years BP. The archeologist/anthropologists involved claimed that their discoveries challenge the traditional theory in which the belief was that the two species evolved in direct, evolutionary, succession, one to the other -- Homo habilis to Homo erectus. Perceivably, instead they led parallel existences for about 500,000 (H. Habilis: 2.3-1.4 Million years: H. erectus 1.8 Million years BP: 0.3 Million years BP, in eastern Africa. Such existences all but completley rule out direct evolutionary succession. If, indeed, this theory is correct, and it appears so at this point, the genus Homo, in its early periods is proving increasingly a mystery, clouding the accepted theory of human evolution. The discovery of H. erectus and H. habilis points at the possibility that they both issued from a common ancestor simultaneous brothers, for which the paternal/maternal fossil record is non-existent-some 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 years BP. However, it is entirely possible that there are other options, however, there is probably not enough useful DNA remaining to find out. Scientists are claiming that this discovery does not challenge the belief that Homo erectus is a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens, but the small skull size, was unexpected, and the implication is that they were that much less like Homo-sapiens than expected. However, I do and have, and still insist, that my original theories, along with in Undergraduate school and the later Computer generated, Berkley 1987 experimental "Eve" with the DNA of all of modern humankind, is not a match for either Homo-Erectus or Homo-Habilis. I still hold with Berkley that our DNA emerged between 220,000-160,000 BP. Where is my evidence? I have none, just my hunch, based on observation, experience and an unknown, (to most people), source, which have in past been found to be more accurate that what some call "Tangible evidence," but nonetheless, supported by the Berkley experiment which came somewhat less than a score of years after my graduate thesis. Other anthropologists and archeologists, whose polestar is on anthropology, see the revelation as a powerful argument that the early transition from ape to human ancestors is becoming less clear, or is at least not at all well understood. Admitting that the origins of the genus Homo are still beyond our knowledge, the search for those origins needs to be widened, as I have stated here recently, and elsewhere long ago.
Darwin's Brilliant, Beagle trip ideation, is slowly slipping in credibility-there is a link missing in the hoped for transmigration of more than one dozen seeming attempts at something like man. Now the question is arising, were any of them successive morphs from one to the other? The strongest evidence that they did not, is the seeming out-of-nowhere, appearance of Homo sapiens, because there was not time for evolution of an organism of that size and complexity and such a massive mutation would be unseemly and with scant, if any, verifiable precedent. Fred Spoor, Professor of Evolutionary anatomy at University College London in the Journal of Nature, stated his belief that this discovery will pose remonstration of the evolutionary linear succession of the three Homo species. Meave Leakey and daughter Louise Leakey, co-directors of the Koobi Fora Research Project, which made the discovery, appear to agree. These two fossils with accompanying deposits of volcanic ash were unearthed just east of Lake Turkana in Kenya in the year 2000, and which dates of existence University of Utah geologists defined. It has taken several years to clean, to prepare and identify the fossils, which were caked with the tough sediment, hence the current news long delay at being made public. Of late, some scientists not involved in the project, have speculated that, recent studies were hinting at some tighter connection between the habilis and erectus. Lacking conclusive evidence however, and with such radical possibilities, the matter was put on the proverbial back burner. Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard, says, "The oldest Homo habilis we had known of was about the same age as erectus." "Now we have extended the duration of the habilis species, and there's no doubt that it overlaps considerably with erectus." In their report, Spoor and colleagues wrote, "With the discovery of the new, well dated specimens, H. habilis and H. erectus can now be shown to have co-occurred in eastern Africa for nearly half a million years." My thoughts, exactly in 1972-1973. The idea occurred to me while studying a burial of Neanderthal and Homo sapiens in the same grave levels, obviously a co-habitation of the same cave. Did they enter-mate? Were there children? In addition, my own experience with the study of The Flower Children Of Shanidar, in which Neanderthals tangibly displayed emotions and deeper feelings, most usually applied by Anthro-archeologists, only to Homo sapiens. This is not the first time two hominid species have lived side-by-side. The fact that the two hominid species lived together in the same lake basin for so long and remained separate species, according to Meave Leakey, "suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding direct competition." She probably meant hunting, foraging, food obtainment, dietary differences, water sources, may have varied enough to make competition or war, highly unseemly. In any case, Leakey said, "Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis." Spoor, speaking from a location near the site, said the evidence clearly contradicted previous ideas of human evolution "as one strong, single line from early to us." The new findings, he added, support the revised interpretations of "a lot of bushiness and experimentation in the fossil record," rather than a more linear succession of species. This is close to my assertions in 1972-1973, of a flesh and blood sketch pad of singular or near singular, but only vaguely related species arising in some form/system/process, as yet unknown to us, or at last only vaguely hinted at, but deep thinkers who are more likely philosophers or bio-theologians-and for the Wikepediacs, the fast fix, non-academics, who lack graduate degrees in Either branch of anthropology, NO, I am NOT speaking of DIRECT CREATION, from lumps of clay, and female ribs! However, Spoor said the second fossil, the 1.5 million year old erectus skull, was probably the more surprising discovery. The bones are unusually well preserved. "What is truly striking about this fossil is its size," he said. "It is the smallest Homo erectus found thus far anywhere in the world." The scientists reported that the individual was a young adult or late teen. Its size was closer to that of a H. habilis than any known erectus fossils. However, the distinctions noted at the outset of this article, are clearly telling, to these expert scientists, at least. In the past, most H. erectus fossils had displayed H. erectus as the first human ancestor very much like Homo sapiens, except for a smaller brain case. However, with this find, mainly the skull's small size, scientists concluded that Homo erectus might have been, in one important respect, a bit less humanlike than had been thought. Homo Erectus was thought to follow Homo habilis (2.6/2.3-1.6 million years BP) with Homo erectus appearing at about 1.8 to 0.3 million years ago. Now, however, their seemingly to live somewhat in harmony at an overlap of about 200,000-to 500,000 years, changes a good many things, some seeming to the non-scientist to have little to do with either species. However, as I pointed out some time back while still a graduate assistant, flora and fauna of that period and following, depending upon the population of the two species and their food choices, may well have changed forever, the environment of the areas in which they lived and roamed. In so doing, it presents to our era challenges, which, by choice or instinct, were begun eons before the introduction of Homo sapiens. How Will This Effect Evolution and Creationism? At this point, that is difficult to say. I see, ass yet, no direct evidence of direct Creationism in all of this, I see, as in evolution, as in every science, perhaps some blind allies. Which means some open-windowed open-mindedness, is called for on both sides, but as thus far I see not a leg on which to stand for the Direct Creationist Seven Days of 24 hours each, idea. Am I a Fundamentalist? No? Do I have a problem with anthropology? If I did I would not have begun to study it, would not have won a Ford Foundation Fellowship in it, would not have been appointed a lecturing Graduate Assistanceship in it, and would not have achieved high grades in it in Graduate school, I would have gone into a seminary. Was I ever an atheist? For a brief time, I spent more years as an agnostic. Am I believer in God? Yes, now I am. Am I a supporter of the anti-science, Christian Right, Direct Creationism? No. I do support a God who is a scientist, physicist and which allowed Creation, through a gradual process tied to the laws of Physics and mathematics, which He created, observed and usually did not break, much of which laws I fear we are not yet aware, for if we were, as Einstein lamented, we would now have the answer to the simple elegant, unifying, principle, which he and others have sought and failed to find. However, late news points to the possibility of that knowledge beginning to surface. I have had, non-religious reservations, not with the theory, which I think is brilliant, but with lack of mathematical efficacy. (Often a deduction can be in error, but brilliantly constructed). The "Evidence" is, at best, in the case of many species, man included, is to a person of exactingly exquisite and precise calculations, highly, problematic, mootable. It reminds me much of the kind of evidence, some prosecutors use in attempts to frame husbands or wives, in cases of murders of one or the other. The "evidence" which I saw, during my Ford Fellowship Foundation Recipient Awards years, seemed to me, (I was at the time an transitioning from atheist to agnostic), as circumstantial as belief in a Supreme Being-still does, to anyone lacking tangible, first-hand knowledge and visual evidence, but more so, now. Now lest the hostile, disrespectful, less educated, snotty, new kids on the block, (who remind me a lot of The fascist Bushites, far more than they remind me of Liberal, Progressive Democrats) or the veteran Wikepediacs-the un-guru's, who are the Jacks of all Science, Masters of None, (that is why they call it a Masters Degree, it means one has Mastered the discipline, well enough to teach it to others who have at least gotten a bachelors degree in the discipline, with very high grades to qualify for entry to the class) come flying out of the woodwork, with pie-in-the-sky, simplistic, disrespectful, one stop, five minutes of research, which they, much like the Fundamentalists, who do not even know the languages, wish to pit against decades of study, quotes from the above, less than scientific source, may I remind them, that I have read and studied ALL the books available, spoken with the best in the field, spent years in deep and prolonged study with men and women of impeccable credentials, and began as a professed, non-believer/non-non-believer (agnostic), and I, also have access to online shortcut services the same ones they have and many more, and I remain unimpressed with those sources and without in-depth knowledge of ALL of the factors, which takes years to absorb, and subjugate/decline/translate and develop, online quick-fixes fix nothing, if they could there would be no need either for college or graduate schools, and that sort of disrespect for higher education and science, places the Un-guru-Wickapediac-only, in the same camp as the Bushites Fundamentalist, anti-science, anti-higher education, saw-dust brains. Anthropology, is a great, if often flawed science, mainly because it is more hamstrung than Astrophysics, because it has only partial dead evidence for it's earliest targets, while the latter still has access to living audio/visual samples of their line of study, which are mostly still intact, therefore can be used for certain aspects of study and are a wealth of vastly and still extant living evidence. Now, where does that leave us? It leaves me in a far better position than I was as a new graduate student, challenging the traditional ages old Anthropological traditions, decades ago when by arguing, respectfully, a newer and seldom even mentioned set of ideas. However, I did it, my regular readers have easily admitted that my predictions evidenced on the record, dated and timed, here and on my BLOGSPOTS, that seemed so unpopular with the talking heads on Fox and MSNBC, as to come out of the deep mist in far right field, are and have been infallibly correct, acing them at every turn. If you doubt it, go to my BLOGSPOTS (2 of them) or go to archives here and see for yourself, the incredibly out-of-the-blue, but correct predictions-predictions no one else dared make. Sounds like a brag, but if it is true, it can't be brag, besides I was not the author of the predictions-they did come "out of the blue." Have a nice day Good Night and God bless