Homo Erectus: Just a Human?

File: consume your calcium.gif (3MB, 360x202px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 360x202px

hello again, creationist fuckwit.

in the last thread, you continued your usual fact-free shitposting, tried to distract from that time (a few threads ago) when you posted an obviously photoshopped pic of cave paintings and tried to claim it was real and that there was a conspiracy to cover it up, and generally made an ass of yourself.
and then you dared me to refute some fuckstupid claims of yours, as a means of diverting the conversation from that shooped embarrassment. and when I did >>9018858, you suddenly got silent and let the thread expire.

I am here to tell you that you don't get to make a new thread and run away from all the embarrassingly idiotic things you have said.
as usual, you can't defend any of your claims; your only tactic is to try and change the subject.

but because you posted some bones, this is now a skeleton thread.

File: rattle.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

oh and seriously, just look at the lateral profiles of the three skulls. a small child could tell you that the first is different from the other three. you'd have to be delusional to think otherwise.
how long will creationists continue posting material that directly refutes their own claims?

File: a_figure4.2.jpg (37KB, 474x419px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 474x419px

>>9023394
>>9023397
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/ape-man/homo-erectus-to-modern-man-evolution-or-human-variability/

File: cool thought.png (75KB, 243x342px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 243x342px

>>9023421
trying to change the subject again, hmm? it won't help you; literally everything you post is trash.

the telling thing about what you just linked to is that NOWHERE IN IT does it reference any kind of morphometric study. LITERALLY ALL THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED is some guy (mostly creationists with no actual credentials desu senpai) qualitatively describing shape and saying "well, it looks kinda like this".
the problem with this is that we actually have ways of quantifying shape and shape change; it's a field called morphometrics, and I know quite a bit about it because the thesis I'm currently writing is a morphometrics project. it's possible to mathematically represent the shape of a specimen using landmarks or outlines, and determine WITH STATISTICAL RIGOR how different populations are from each other, and establish whether there is a statistically significant trend.
and it just so turns out that when you do THAT instead of just eyeballing it (which is incredibly subjective; skulls that look similar to an ignorant creationist may be easily distinguished by an actual anthropologist), you find that there ARE significant differences between modern and ancient humans, and that there's a significant directional trend over evolutionary history.
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giorgio_Manzi/publication/252730461_Geometric_morphometric_analysis_of_mid-sagittal_cranial_profiles_in_Neandertals_modern_humans_and_their_ancestors/links/569b5d9408aeeea985a2f111.pdf
>http://www.pnas.org/content/100/26/15335.full.pdfshapes
>http://references.260mb.com/Paleontologia/Bruner2004.pdf
get dunked on.

File: skeledance.gif (543KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 480x480px

still nothing, huh?

File: kidder_10_2_1.jpg (23KB, 300x219px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x219px

http://creationwiki.org/Homo_erectus

>>9023394
not an argument

>>9023397
not an argument

>>9023458
not an argument

File: something_called_proof.png (5KB, 326x181px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 326x181px

>>9024813
I'll just clear something up here, wannabe creationist Molymeme:
>>9023394 isn't and obviously wasn't intended as an argument, so you're right, but it doesn't matter.
A tree isn't a door, until you turn it into a door.
Up until that point, saying a tree isn't a door is valid, but pointless.
>>9023397
Is an argument, as it points out a flaw (an overt one) in your apparent 'evidence'. - By the way, the evidence itself refutes your argument.
>>9023458
Is also an argument and a better one than the one above, as it actually includes sources, it also refutes your claims.
So, in short, your retort to two arguments was a non-argument itself as therefore invalid.
You were right on one count, but it doesn't matter, as it wasn't intended as an argument.
Learn to make valid points, or fuck off.

File: Skeleton.gif (486KB, 475x347px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 475x347px

>>9024813
me, an intellectual:
>sources claiming that specimens assigned to H. erectus are within the normal realm of variation for H. sapiens sapiens rely on outdated figures and simplistic metrics that don't accurately represent physiological shape. the approaches are entirely qualitative, which makes scoring highly subjective. modern morphometric studies, which actually quantify shape and assess changes in shape with statistical rigor, universally find that not only is early Homo skull morphology significantly different from that of modern humans, but early Homo specimens become more and more similar to modern humans as time progressed, showing clear evidence of morphological change from one (plesiomorphic) state to another (apomorphic) one.
you, a moron:
>uhhhhhhhhhhhhh hurr not an argument durr

File: cavemen-craftsmen.gif (222KB, 600x613px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 600x613px

>>9024861
>>9024883
That ain't me, I'm >>9024784

File: spooky.gif (113KB, 260x199px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 260x199px

>>9024894
>early Homo make sharp rocks
>late Homo make fine-edged axes, intricate tools and figurines
totally the same thing, no evolutionary change here!
faggot

File: tumblr_n19t4f3cM81r46foao1_500.jpg (104KB, 366x650px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 366x650px

>>9024917
>dehumanizing man
How sick are you?
https://youtu.be/HxLMyqJfX0Y

File: horrifying.jpg (412KB, 960x706px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 960x706px

>>9025033
>how dare you suggest that these fossils were in any way different from modern humans
not an argument, buddy

keep trying to distract from your inability to explain why morphometric analyses consistently find:
a) significant differences between early Homo and modern H. sapiens sapiens, and
b) a directional trend showing early Homo becoming more and more like H. sapiens sapiens over time.
can you refute ANYTHING in >>9023458 or either of the three papers linked in it?

File: primate-tree-lge (1).jpg (93KB, 637x477px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 637x477px

>>9025066
But aren't Erectus considered a successful Eurasian offshoot of the African Ergaster? Unless you're suggesting the even more racist multi-regional hypothesis, that is (pic related).

>>9023246
Give it up, Christian. You're only going to proselytize morons, and you're welcome to them. You'd probably have more success on another board.

File: evolution-treeofevil.jpg (42KB, 400x429px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x429px

>>9025283
One must strike the tree at its base, and tear out the roots.

File: 1493570706631.png (326KB, 379x371px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 379x371px

>homo erectus

>>9025314
Yeah we get it. Science isn't simple and you crave simplicity. Because you're simple.

File: confused_gandalf_Evolution.jpg (73KB, 500x607px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x607px

>>9025383
>seeing yourselves as the smart ones

File: Radiometric_Raccoon.jpg (262KB, 937x623px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 937x623px

>>9025522

name one (1) practical, industrial application of the creationist model.

until you can come up with one, evolution is the status quo.

>>9023246
>denser bones than us
>lol totally same species as us dudes XD

File: 8c8[1].gif (1022KB, 375x212px) Image search: [Google]

1022KB, 375x212px

>>9025168
>aren't Erectus considered a successful Eurasian offshoot of the African Ergaster?
It's ambiguous whether Eurasian "erectus" is descended from African "ergaster" or whether they represent regional populations of the same chronospecies.
And excuse me, what the fuck does that have to do with literally anything he said?

>>9025522
>any explanation I don't like or can't understand is bad
Reminder: your """"explanation"""" for literally everything is "God did it, but then made it hard to figure out just to test our faith".

File: Nellie.png (902KB, 879x809px) Image search: [Google]

902KB, 879x809px

>>9025671
"Early homo" encompasses habilis, rudolfensis, and ergaster. Since ergaster is the species from which we are supposedly descended, any changes observed in eurasian erectus would be unique unto themselves and not part of the group that was "modernizing," and therefore cannot be used to justify evolution, as they are an offshoot, not a link.

File: trousled.png (54KB, 500x712px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x712px

>>9025694
>Since ergaster is the species from which we are supposedly descended
you're assuming that there was no gene flow between African ("ergaster") populations and Asian ("erectus") populations, and also that there was no later interbreeding between more modern humans and relict erectus-descended populations. amazingly enough, you're wrong on both counts. (ever heard of the Denisovans?)

>any changes observed in eurasian erectus would be unique unto themselves and not part of the group that was "modernizing," and therefore cannot be used to justify evolution, as they are an offshoot, not a link.
you're literally saying that evolution only counts as evolution if it's leading to modern humans. when a population undergoes change (and ultimately speciation) over time, THAT is evolution! whether or not it leads directly to US is irrelevant!

and again, do you have ANY refutation to anything in >>9023458?

>>9023246
>>9023246
>Homo Erection
>evolutionists been so blinded
L0Lno fgt pls

File: A Man, Nothing More.jpg (204KB, 460x495px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 460x495px

>>9025829
>muh stats
>muh numbers
>muh rigor
As with the Neanderthals, they are merely mensch. Not ubermensch, nor urmensch, just mensch.

>>9024917
thats even implying they can actually date rocks and cave paint, not just nearby fires or organic material up to 50,000 years

File: boner.gif (571KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 320x240px

>>9026528
morphometrics is what allows us to definitively identify remains when contamination makes DNA fingerprinting impossible. it fucking WORKS.
but as soon as it conflicts with
>muh uhpinyuns
apparently you just throw it out the window.
typical creationist; when they don't like the evidence, they just stick their fingers in their ears and ignore it.

File: Complete-Agreement.jpg (146KB, 1200x478px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1200x478px

>>9026932
Same could be said for you.

File: W3ljlBg.jpg (58KB, 500x415px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x415px

>>9027581
from what i can tell that person spent a good amount of time studying it instead of ignoring it and shit posting in an effort to convince people(for some reason on 4chan) that evolution is non-existent. I mean this guy is coming in from the angle of morphometrics and anthropology but there's a fuckton of other material to back the evolutionary theory. It is, however, a theory and must be constantly tested. The same goes for gravity....

>>9027596
I'd just as soon say just ignore the little fucktard and let the thread die.

File: DOOT.png (616KB, 632x738px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 632x738px

>>9027581
3quoque5me