PDA

View Full Version : Were Australoids first considered Homo Erectus?



Digitalseal
Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 02:28 AM
is it true that they were first considered to be H. Erectus, or in a evolutionary state somewhere between H. Erectus and H.Sapien?

juju_man
Friday, June 23rd, 2006, 10:21 AM
That is a speculation I have heard elsewhere, I believe with their brow ridges being cited as one of the reasons (Java man) along with their overall more primitive look.

vingul
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 05:26 PM
I think this idea has been largely refuted, and most paleoanthropologists now interpret the primitive Australid morphology as a near-retention of most of the features which characterized the generalized sapiens population of the Pleistocene, meaning that Australids are essentially similar (only somewhat gracilized) to the ancestors of all living races of Man (this also goes for true Veddids, who are very similar to Australids), but still far from the erectus or similar ancestor.

This interpretation relies on subscription to the Out of Africa theory though.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, July 4th, 2006, 09:27 AM
I think this idea has been largely refuted, and most paleoanthropologists now interpret the primitive Australid morphology as a near-retention of most of the features which characterized the generalized sapiens population of the Pleistocene, meaning that Australids are essentially similar (only somewhat gracilized) to the ancestors of all living races of Man (this also goes for true Veddids, who are very similar to Australids), but still far from the erectus or similar ancestor.

This interpretation relies on subscription to the Out of Africa theory though.


Then why did only Australian Aboriginies have these features if we all came Out of Africa at the same time? Now, we have another candidate for giving Aboriginies their unique set of cranial characteristics, Flores man. And nobody can deny that the Hobbits were living AFTER Out of Africa took place.

vingul
Tuesday, July 4th, 2006, 03:35 PM
Then why did only Australian Aboriginies have these features if we all came Out of Africa at the same time?

(Africans never left Africa. Also, the rest of us presumably left in several waves.)

"Generalized Pleistocene sapiens" obviously applies to the ancestors of all living humans. It is merely a question of evolutionary retention of features that were present among all Pleistocene human populations, not a special or alien development in Australids. Australids are less plesiomorphic than the average sapiens of 100,000-150,000 years ago, so there is no reason to believe that they are not fully sapiens. In the case of Australids, the degree of primitiveness is fully sapiens, of the Pleistocene tradition.


Now, we have another candidate for giving Aboriginies their unique set of cranial characteristics, Flores man. And nobody can deny that the Hobbits were living AFTER Out of Africa took place.

Floresiensis is probably derived from an Asian erectus stock, and does not resemble any Australid. Terminal-Pleistocene Australid crania (not far removed in time from floresiensis, ca. 18 kbp) are very similar to modern Australid crania, only slightly larger (!), and slightly more robust.

The speculation that floresiensis might have some relation to the Barrineans or other Pygmoids is similarly vague and unsupported. Island dwarfing is a common phenomenon.

SubGnostic
Thursday, July 20th, 2006, 09:02 PM
If there ever will be groundbreaking, firm evidence to debunk the "out of Africa" -theory, it will probably be discredited by the public as some neo-nazi scheme.

Against:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0703_020704_georgianskull.html
For:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1017_051017_egyptprimates.html

vingul
Friday, July 21st, 2006, 11:15 PM
If there ever will be groundbreaking, firm evidence to debunk the "out of Africa" -theory, it will probably be discredited by the public as some neo-nazi scheme.

If it is really groundbreaking and firm, I doubt it will be discredited.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, July 22nd, 2006, 06:58 AM
(Africans never left Africa. Also, the rest of us presumably left in several waves.)

"Generalized Pleistocene sapiens" obviously applies to the ancestors of all living humans. It is merely a question of evolutionary retention of features that were present among all Pleistocene human populations, not a special or alien development in Australids. Australids are less plesiomorphic than the average sapiens of 100,000-150,000 years ago, so there is no reason to believe that they are not fully sapiens. In the case of Australids, the degree of primitiveness is fully sapiens, of the Pleistocene tradition.



Floresiensis is probably derived from an Asian erectus stock, and does not resemble any Australid. Terminal-Pleistocene Australid crania (not far removed in time from floresiensis, ca. 18 kbp) are very similar to modern Australid crania, only slightly larger (!), and slightly more robust.

The speculation that floresiensis might have some relation to the Barrineans or other Pygmoids is similarly vague and unsupported. Island dwarfing is a common phenomenon.

The Out of Africa sapiens didn't look anything like Australian Aboriginies, except maybe for skin color. The only thing that possibly could resemble the Aboriginies are the Southern African erectus material and line, Broken Hill, Cape Flats, Sahldana. They were later than necessary to be ancestral for Aboriginies.

Homo floresiensis has the same basic shape as erectus which also resembles some Aboriginal skulls, especially the early ones. Homo erectus came in various sizes. Pigmies are not a seperate species. There is no reason H. erectus could not have had pigmies. If H. erectus could interbreed with sapiens, then so might H. erectus pigmies. The similarities between erectus and Aboriginies are also the similarities between floresiensis and Aboriginies.

vingul
Saturday, July 22nd, 2006, 09:56 AM
The Out of Africa sapiens didn't look anything like Australian Aboriginies, except maybe for skin color.

Skulls of generalized appearance from the Pleistocene are described as "Australoid", with good reason (when they lack the specialized regional features of e.g. Mongolids). They tend to be characterized by long and narrow, curvoccipital skulls, short and narrow faces, greater supraorbital development, including inflated glabella, more pronounced superciliary ridges and a depressed nasion over a short nose, and relatively low and rectangular orbits. Lo and behold, an Australid.


The only thing that possibly could resemble the Aboriginies are the Southern African erectus material and line, Broken Hill, Cape Flats, Sahldana. They were later than necessary to be ancestral for Aboriginies.

Right ... Broken Hill, 300 kya, extreme post-orbital constriction, unlike anything in seen in Australids. "Later than necessary"? Sure, and earlier. They were, indeed, later and earlier than necessary to be ancestral to Australo-Melanesids, Negrids, Europids, Mongolids ... As long as this skeletal material does not exclude other interpretations, they are not evidence for your model.


Homo floresiensis has the same basic shape as erectus which also resembles some Aboriginal skulls, especially the early ones.

There is no similarity to the earliest known Australid crania. As stated earlier, the earliest known Australian aboriginal crania are almost contemporaneous with the Homo floresiensis find, and they are almost identical to modern Australid crania, but for matters of size and slight gracilization (Brown, P., "Recent Human Evolution in East Asia and Australasia" (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, Series B, 337: pp. 235-242.)).


Homo erectus came in various sizes.

That is true, and I did not argue to the contrary.


Pigmies are not a seperate species.

That is true, and I did not argue to the contrary.


There is no reason H. erectus could not have had pigmies.

That is true, and I did not argue to the contrary.


If H. erectus could interbreed with sapiens, then so might H. erectus pigmies.

Sheer possibility has nothing to do with evidence. If H. erectus could mate with H. sapiens, then H. erectus might have mated with proto-Europids, proto-Negrids, and proto-Mongolids. Should we therefore assume that they did, and that this admixture was rubbed out of the various phenotypes through rigorous selection, which is what ROAs assume anyway when we suggest that all H. sapientes are descended from a population of H. erectus?


The similarities between erectus and Aboriginies are also the similarities between floresiensis and Aboriginies.

Yes, both are very different from Australids. What are the specifics that lie at the back of your argumentation? What similarities, specifically?

nätdeutsch
Saturday, August 5th, 2006, 05:23 AM
'i think that australiads are not homo sapians, for the fact that they often do not have crania exceeding 1000cc in volume, which is normally seen as a benchmark size'

catchmeifyoukhan
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 11:25 PM
is it true that they were first considered to be H. Erectus, or in a evolutionary state somewhere between H. Erectus and H.Sapien?

Yes, the Java man, through Wadjak man affiliation.
Australoids and mongoloids (Shukutien, through upper cave) are the two human groups for which "out of Africa" proponants admit a possible multiregional evolution. Yet, since Homo neandertalensis affiliation seems to be definitely discarded as regard europoids, what do you think about an Aterian or even a Djebel Irhoud Europoid affiliation ?

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007, 07:07 AM
Skulls of generalized appearance from the Pleistocene are described as "Australoid", with good reason (when they lack the specialized regional features of e.g. Mongolids). They tend to be characterized by long and narrow, curvoccipital skulls, short and narrow faces, greater supraorbital development, including inflated glabella, more pronounced superciliary ridges and a depressed nasion over a short nose, and relatively low and rectangular orbits. Lo and behold, an Australid.



Right ... Broken Hill, 300 kya, extreme post-orbital constriction, unlike anything in seen in Australids. "Later than necessary"? Sure, and earlier. They were, indeed, later and earlier than necessary to be ancestral to Australo-Melanesids, Negrids, Europids, Mongolids ... As long as this skeletal material does not exclude other interpretations, they are not evidence for your model.



There is no similarity to the earliest known Australid crania. As stated earlier, the earliest known Australian aboriginal crania are almost contemporaneous with the Homo floresiensis find, and they are almost identical to modern Australid crania, but for matters of size and slight gracilization (Brown, P., "Recent Human Evolution in East Asia and Australasia" (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, Series B, 337: pp. 235-242.)).



That is true, and I did not argue to the contrary.



That is true, and I did not argue to the contrary.



That is true, and I did not argue to the contrary.



Sheer possibility has nothing to do with evidence. If H. erectus could mate with H. sapiens, then H. erectus might have mated with proto-Europids, proto-Negrids, and proto-Mongolids. Should we therefore assume that they did, and that this admixture was rubbed out of the various phenotypes through rigorous selection, which is what ROAs assume anyway when we suggest that all H. sapientes are descended from a population of H. erectus?



Yes, both are very different from Australids. What are the specifics that lie at the back of your argumentation? What similarities, specifically?

Generalized sapiens are not called Australoids in Africa. The African specimens called Australoids are Australoid looking and also share features with Homo erectus. Broken Hill, Saldana, Cape Flats are great examples. Broken Hill is simply an erectus with a big brain and a long face. Cape Flats is a great Australoid. In the African Middle and Upper Paleolithic there were three races present, Bushmen-like creatures-both reduced and unreduced, Australoids, and in East Africa a vaguely Caucasoid looking people who fluxuated between a large Atlanto-Med and the present day inhabitants. Osama bin Laden is an example of this type.

The earliest sapiens which left Africa are the ones found in Palestine near the later Neanderthal caves. They looked very African and similar to the much later Grimaldi "Negroids". They were in no way Australoid. If anything, they were closer to the Bushmen people.

The Australoid type in Africa died out or were absorbed by the Bantus or other peoples.

The Hobbits from Flores resemble H. erectus in every way I know of except size. Maybe you can find some cranial index, arc or cord which does not either fit the erectus or Australian Aboriginal model--this is both cranium and face. The similarites are too numerous to mention. From the islands of the Indian Ocean to the Phillipines there are relic populations of pigmys who are dark, small, and flat-faced. Is the presence of these people within the range of the Hobbits a case of parallel evolution or is there a genetic relationship? When we are able to characterize the Hobbits and gather enough data from these Pigmys we will have our answer as to their relationship with H. sapiens. We have had to fight a tough battle with those who want to make all of us the same under the skin over the Hobbits. Finally, it is over and they are recognized for what they are, a seperate species (morphospecies).

If you think that within H. sapiens Australian Aboriginies are just an example of a neontenous race going gerontomorphic, then show me one example of this? It does not happen in the real world. Sapiens are on a one-way street going from gerontomorphic to neontenous but not the other way around. There is no reason to assume it did once sapiens left Africa.