Homo erectus and Homo ergaster are NOT Human


Reasons why Homo erectus, and Homo ergaster are not human

Since the first fossils of Homo erectus were found in Java (1891) many have had varying opinions as to what this creature was. Was it human? Was it ape? Was it something in between?

Erectus paradygm shift

Up until Lubenows book most Creationists considered erectus to be a form of ape. Lubenow almost single handedly changed this view with his book "Bones of Contention". But is Lubenow right?

I don't believe so.

*paradigm: in the philosophy of science, a generally accepted model of how ideas relate to one another, forming a conceptual framework within which scientific research is carried out

You can see Lubenows influence on other Christian authors:

"Far from dismissing erectus forms as being only large extinct apes or frauds, the pendulum is now swinging to the view that most, if not all erectus specimens are indeed full members of the human race. With the discovery of the Turkana 'Boy' WT 15000 in 1984 in Kenya, it is no longer possible to hold to the position that Homo erectus was only a large-brained pongid."
(Homo erectus 'to' Modern Man: Evolution or Variability? A. W. (Bill) Mehlert, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):105-116, 1994.)

Mehlert also makes the mistake of saying (of KNM-WT 15000):
"This skeleton is fully human with only very minor differences from some modern humans."
(Homo erectus 'to' Modern Man: Evolution or Variability? A. W. (Bill) Mehlert, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):105-116, 1994.)

Mehlert has never seen the original skeleton. And most likely has not read Walkers book, or even studied a cast like I have of the skeleton. Unfortunatly Bill passed away a few months ago (2002) so I was unable to talk with him about this.

Though it represents the remains of a rather large primate, Homo erectus and Homo ergaster are not human.

I know this idea will be new to many Christians who have heard Lubenow, Gish etc. say erectus was human, but the remains of these creatures are those of complex apes (we have the degenerated - post-fall version of these apes today) not humans.

Not all that glitters is gold, and not every fossil once classified as erectus is erectus

Which skulls are Homo erectus?

Skulls such as Petralona, Rhodesian man, Kow Swamp etc. are not Homo erectus skulls. They are human skulls. So when I say Homo erectus is not human, I am not talking about these skulls. These skulls are classified by some as Homo heidelbergensis, and others like Kow Swamp are classifed as Homo erectus.

Go to:
https://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/heidelberg.html
for more info on these skulls.

The non-human skulls that are classified as Homo erectus are: Turkana boy (Nariokotome), Java man, Peking man, KNM-ER 3733, etc.

If you feel some resistance at classifying a bipedal creature as an ape, please continue reading. This work may just change your mind.

Many Creationists think that Homo erectus has been presented as more ape like than it really is. I think the opposite is true.

The fully human Neanderthals are often downgraded to look more primitive than they really are. Whereas Homo erectus is upgraded and made to appear more human-like than it actually is.

After studying a cast of the Narikotome skeleton first hand (I purchased this in 2001), I see many places where they have attempted to make erectus look more human like than it actually was.

Some of these changes are seen in the chest (ribs), teeth, and face.

By calling Homo erectus an ape, I am not stripping it of its humanity, I am acknowledging its shortcomings as a human, and a helper for Adam. Adam could look this creature in the eye and see it was non-human.

Would erectus go unnoticed if it wore a hat?

I recently had a creationist tell me that:
"The cover of Time drew an erectus male looking just like a tall Olympic athlete. If that individual were to wear a hat, hiding his receding forehead and prominent brow ridges (features which are, in isolation, not unknown among today’s populations), he would not even warrant a second look."

This is far from true. If you were to put a hat on H. erectus its large projecting face would still peer out from underneath. H. erectus had a flat (ape) nose and massive canine teeth (Sangiran 17, Dmanisi, 15k). These and many other features would readily distinguish it from H. sapiens. Not to mention all the postcranial differences.

Imagine putting a hat on an ape, and then saying "look now you can't tell the difference between it and a human". The idea is ludicrous, and anyone making this claim needs to take a closer look at the fossils.

When Adam looked at Australopithecus or H. erectus he wasn't looking at a pre-human species, or an ancestor. He was looking into the eyes of an ape - an ape superior to their living descendants we see today (chimp gorilla, etc).

No doubt I will be criticized for saying that Neanderthals, H. erectus and australopithecines all lived at the same time (they were all created on day 6 of the creation week). But dating methods rely on too many assumptions, and it has not been proven that these species did not all live together.

If we can't trust the dates of rocks with ages we know, why should we trust the dates of rocks of unknown ages?

There are many differences between Homo erectus and true humans (Homo sapiens).

1) The dentition. There are similarities between the dentition of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, but many of the features of Homo erectus teeth found only in apes. These include (but are not limited to) the presence of a simian shelf in erectus, and also the newly discovered (9/17/01) presence of an ape diastema (this had been covered up to make erectus appear more human-like). The jaws of Homo erectus have been reconstructed improperly, and made to appear more human-like than they actually are. Click HERE for more information on the teeth of Homo erectus

2) The body of KNM-WT 15000 has longer spines on the vertebrae than humans. ("From Lucy to Language" by Donald Johanson, pg 182)

3) Homo erectus could not speak Click HERE for evidence that Homo erectus could not speak

4) Homo erectus has a pelvis that is more narrow than our own. Click HERE for more info on the Pelvis of Homo erectus
5) Homo erectus also has an elongated neck on the femur (something that is also found in the australopithecines) Click HERE for more information on the Leg bones of Homo erectus

6) Shape of the brain case. Donald Johanson also adds that "...the sides of the brain case are flattened instead of arching as in humans." (pg 180 "From Lucy to Language")

Shape of the ribs. The rib cage of Homo erectus is not shaped like a humans. It also has a 6th lumbar vertebra, and many other features found in the complex apes. Click here to read about the ribs and lumbar vertebra.

Sagitall (sp) keel found in many erectus individuals

Below A.P. Santa Luca gives some more evidence from the Ngandong Homo erectus fossils, that show Homo erectus was not human:

"The Ngandong skulls most closely resemble Far Eastern H. erectus, particularly the Javanese group, and are distinct from Neandertals and anatomically modern H. sapiens. The following characteristics are shared by all the Far Eastern H. erectus skulls studied here but are not typical of Neandertals and anatomically modern H. sapiens.

1) In midsagittal outline, the frontal squama is low and only moderately erect distal to the supraorbital torus.

2. The midsagittal outline of the two planes of the occipital bone is sharply angulated along the occipital torus.

3. The midsagittal outline of the planum occipitale never projects behind IN (a corollary of 2 above)

. 4. The interporial outline of the zygomatic root projects markedly away from the temporal squama.

5. The interporial outline of the squamous temporal is vertical or slanted inward but is not laterally convex.

6. A moderate-to-slight sagittal keel tops the interporial outline.

7. The glabella horizontal tracing of the supraorbital torus is rather straight, particularly near the center.

8. The glabella horizontal outlines of the parietals are straight and para]lel­sided.

These traits are distinctive of Far Eastern H. erectus and do not necessarily apply to specimens beyond this geographic range. For instance, Broken Hill exhibits traits 1, 3, and 5 clearly and traits 2 and 8 to a lesser degree; but Broken Hill is not thereby necessarily classified as H. erectus. Therefore, these traits are descriptive but not proscriptive in a classificatory sense."

pg 92-93 "The Ngandong Fossil Hominids: A comparitive study of a Far Eastern Homo erectus Group", by A.P. Santa Luca, Yale University Puplications in Anthropology Number 78. Department of Anthropology Yale University 1980.

Later Luca adds:
"It is a commonplace that the greatest cranial breadth in H. erectus lies low on the vault, usually on the supramastoid crest, but that in modern humans it is high, near the squamosal suture."
"The Ngandong Fossil Hominids: A comparitive study of a Far Eastern Homo erectus Group", by A.P. Santa Luca, Yale University Puplications in Anthropology Number 78. Department of Anthropology Yale University 1980. pg 93.

Speaking of Homo erectus:
"According to Richard Leakey, "practically every piece of bone shows minute but unquestionable differences from modern man" (Angela 1993).

Jim Foley points out that Dr. Gish stresses the skeletal similarities but ignores these differences."

I spoke with Dr. Gish on 7/23/01 in reference to the Turkana boy (Homo erectus) and Dr. Gish told me that it is "human from the neck down", he repeated the quote in his book about Richard Leakey and Alan Walker putting the jaw on the skull and laughing because it looked so much like a Neanderthal.

Dr. Gish told me that the Turkana boy "..had to be human.", but wasn't sure if it was a Neanderthal or modern human.

I disagree with Dr. Gish and Dr. Lubenow in this, as both will not allow themselves to see that some apes in the Garden of Eden could walk upright. Both have told me they reject the idea of bipedal primates. (see my page on the upright posture of Homo erectus).

It was not until August of 1984 when the Nariokotome skeleton was found that we could combine a nearly complete skull with nearly complete post cranial remains from the same individual. For the first time the body could be studied along with the skull of the same individual.

Early publications stressed WT-15000’s large cranium, upright posture and human like body,

Rensberger, Boyce, "Human Fossil is Unearthed," Washington Post, October 19, 1984, pp. A1, A11.p. A1
"The new find reveals that these ancient people had bodies virtually indistinguishable from our own....The skeleton showed that the boy stood 5 feet 6 inches, taller than many of today’s 12-year olds."

Rensberger, Boyce, "Human Fossil is Unearthed," Washington Post, October 19, 1984, pp. A1, A11.

Rensberger is quoted as saying: p. A11
"From the neck down, the bones are remarkably modern in shape..." (Pg. a11)

Yet the words that follow are usually ignored:
"The skull and jawbone, by contrast, are more primitive in appearance..."
(Rensberger pg. a11 "Rensberger, Boyce, "Human Fossil is Unearthed," Washington Post, October 19, 1984, pp. A1, A11.)

How much importance should be placed on these "primitive" features of the head and jaw? What about the other bones?

"Alan Walker of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine describes the overall impression of the skeleton as being essentially human from the neck down. He points out, however, that preliminary examination of the individual bones reveals subtle but interesting anatomical differences from modern Homo sapiens in many regions of the body"
– (emphasis mine) Lewin Source: Science, Nov 2, 1984 v226 p 529(1). Title: Unexpected anatomy in Homo erectus. Author: Roger Lewin

This was published just a few short months after the discovery. Vital study had still not been done on these remains at this time.

When someone says they are virtually indistinguishable, they are not saying they are identical. They are saying they are similar but with recognizable differences.


Gabriel Ward Lasker

On pg. 135 Lubenow quotes Gabriel Ward Lasker (Wayne State University) to support his theory that erectus is human:
"Homo erectus is distinct from modern man (Homo sapiens), but there is a tendency to exaggerate the differences. Even if one ignores transitional or otherwise hard to classify specimens and limits consideration to the Java and Peking populations, the range of variation of many features of Homo erectus falls within that of modern man"
(Lasker "Physical Anthropology" (New York; Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973) 284.

This is a 1973 edition of a Anthropology book. Now keep in mind that Lasker is saying that erectus is different from Homo sapiens (humans), but his idea that erectus is just a varient of Homo sapiens is incorrect. We need to examin Lasker's words, and consider what erectus fossils were available at the time he wrote this.

Such spectacular erectus individuals as KNM-WT 15000 (1984), and others (will elaborate soon) had not even been found at this time.

If one would ask Lasker what he thinks of erectus now that more material (an entire skeleton!) was found, we would see that he does not agree with Lubenow. Therefore this outdated source gives no support to the erectus = sapiens conclusion that Lubenow has reached.

To find out for sure I am conatacting Lasker and will update this section at that time to see what he really thinks of Homo erectus.

Lubenow follows up this statement with a passage from "The First Men" :

"His bones were heavier and thicker than a modern man's, and bigger bones required thicker muscles to move them. These skeletal differences, however, were not particularly noticeable. "Below the neck," one expert has noted "the differences between Homo erectus and today’s man could only be detected by an experienced anatomist."
("The First Men" Edmund White, and Dale Brown New York, Time –Life Books, 1973, 14)

Who is this "expert" quoted above? Why not use a quote from an authority on Erectus published during the same time that disputes this claim? What post cranial bones of erectus existed at this time to base this conclusion on?

If it is only the Java man femur, nearly all authorities attribute it to a true human who lived at the same time as erectus, and not to erectus himself.


Turkana boy - a Homo erectus youth

"Ann had also discovered that the main difference between humans and all other primates was an enlargement of the human spinal cord in the region that controls the lower neck, arms, and thorax, which, fortuitously, was the very region that was best represented in the boy’s remains. Ann confirmed that the boy’s spinal cord was genuinely small in the thoracic region, as I had suspected. That made him anatomically like apes and monkeys and unlike humans
pg 263 Alan Walker, "Wisdom of the Bones"


The mastoid process

Humans have a large mastoid process, and a small juxtamastoid process.

Apes, including erectus and australopithecines have the opposite. They have small mastoid processes, and large juxta mastoid processes.


The Glenoid Cavity

The Glenoid cavity also differentiates Homo erectus from Homo sapiens:
Speaking of OH 9: "The glenoid fossa is reasonably well preserved on the right, though its lateral extent is obscured by damage to the zygomatic process. The medial section of the tympanic plate is also broken. The cavity itself is very deep, and the articular surface seems to have extended far out onto the posteroinferiorly-directed root of the zygomatic process. The long axis of the articular tubercle is inclined slightly forward and is thus oblique to the sagittal plane. The surface of this tubercle is hollowed, deeply in its middle portion, and there is a smooth transition anteriorly into the infratemporal fossa. The morphology of this region is infact quite distinct from that of modern Homo sapiens, in which a more prominent cylindrical articular eminence frequently forms the forward boundary of the glenoid cavity"
(pg 67 Rightmire, "The evolution of Homo erectus")(emphasis mine)

Anterior nasal spine

Humans have an anterior nasal spine. Apes, including Homo erectus do not. Are humans the only primates with an anterior nasal spine? What is it? What does it do? (under construction)

Homo erectus would be more like Chewbacca in build, and mentally, than they would the characters in the Planet of the apes (talking etc).

If you have any questions on Creation, Evolution, or just want to say "Hi" please feel free to email me.


| Main Index | Ape-man Index |