3.2 Out of Africa

by Ulrich Utiger

Abstract

Besides favoring a gradualistic reading of the fossil record, Darwinists also presume that evolution is chaotic and has no purpose (Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 52; Tuomisto et al. 2018). However, if a Designer created all species, one has to expect a direction from simple towards more complex life forms. Furthermore, repeating patterns from one species to another should be recognizable because God does not create chaotically but wants us to recognize his signature in creation. Among others, such repeating patters are the diverse expansions of early and modern humans out of Africa. Darwin’s apostles are either unable to recognize such patterns or, worse, if coming into sight, they mistrust and circumvent them because they suspect order, in other words, creation, which they exclude axiomatically. As a consequence, their phylogenetic theories are just as chaotic and diverse, often making a consensus almost impossible.

Contents

Fossils
The Rise of Human Traits
Homo Habilis
Homo Erectus
Homo Neanderthalensis
Homo Sapiens
Out of Eden
References

Site Navigation

Home | Expand All | Contract All

3.2.1 Fossils

Assigning fossils to species is indeed not always an exact science because there is sometimes too much room left for interpretation. In the field of hominization, this led to different schools of thought about what and when Homo species emerged (Brown 1990 p. 28). So according to a given author and his/her time of writing, the reader is confronted with more or less different views. The taxonomic index of Henke & Tattersall (2015) mentions about forty different species belonging to the genus Homo. Some of them are listed for historical reasons and are not valid anymore, others are still debated. According to geneticist Bryan Sykes (2001 p. 110):

Their names – Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis – reflect the to and fro of attempts to pigeon-hole them into different species. However, these are species defined on the basis of the anatomical features preserved in the skeletons, particularly the skulls, and not in the biological sense of different, genetically isolated, species who are incapable of breeding with any other… From the shapes of the bones alone, there is simply no way of knowing whether humans (I use the term ‘human’ to include everything in the genus Homo) from different parts of the world were capable of successful interbreeding… [O]nce the different types of human become incapable of interbreeding, they can no longer exchange genes. They become different biological species with isolated gene pools… If two or more of these species later come into conflict for space or resources, then, unless a compromise is reached, one species will become extinct. It is this question that lies behind one of the longest-running and most deep-seated controversies in human evolution… [A]re modern humans directly descended from the fossils found in their part of the world, or are many of these the remains of now extinct genetically separate human species? there is no serious doubt that all humans alive today are members of the same species, Homo sapiens.

In fact, since the initial discovery and description of the Javan skullcap by Eugène Dubois in the early 1890s,

There is probably no area of paleoanthropology in which disagreement is more profound than in the systematics and taxonomy of the genus Homo in the Early to Middle Pleistocene (Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2167-2171).

Some assign the early African fossils from this time to H. ergaster alone and the later Asian fossils from China, Java and other places to H. erectus sensu stricto. Others, however, consider that all these fossils belong to H. erectus sensu lato, arguing that it is a long-lived polytypic species. Still others try to get some order into this muddle by subdividing the different views into three main categories: the multi-regional, the single-species and the multiple-species model, which all try to account for the important variation inside these fossils (Foley 1995 p. 100; Klein 2009 pp. 279-280; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2172-2179, 2189-2190, 2195).

As new fossils are constantly discovered, this variation is in the increase, which has the potential to mess up existing but fragile consensuses. According to Susan C. Antón, “The greater the fossil data set, the less clear the boundaries between taxa appear to be” (cited by K. L. Baab in Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2210). Such statements manifest the tendency of paleoanthropologists to read into the fossil record their Darwinian gradualism, according to which natural selection is a speciation mechanism, while in reality it is only a limited self-adaptation to changing conditions, leading to a lot of variation but only inside a given species.

According to Bergmann’s rule, for instance, individuals of warm-blooded species in colder climates will incline to get shorter limbs and larger bodies because in colder regions there is demand for body heat conservation. Now, the ratio between skin area (proportional to heat dissipation) and body volume (proportional to heat conservation) decreases with increasing volume. For example, the ratio between the area of a sphere and its volume is inversely proportional to its radius. This implies that the bigger the sphere, the longer it is able to conserve heat. So larger individuals are favored in colder climates because they can better conserve their body heat. Conversely, in warmer regions there is demand for heat dissipation, whereby slender individuals are favored. Such developments are observable within many living species including modern humans (Foley 1995 p. 143; Panter-Brick et al. 2001 p. 241; Klein 2009 p. 457; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 143, 1873), but they do not lead to new species.

Insular gigantism and dwarfism is another phenomenon described by Foster’s rule: small species tend to increase and large species to decrease their size when they colonize isolated islands, even though there are also many exceptions to this rule. For instance, there may be fewer predators on an island compared to the mainland. As a result, smaller variants of a large species have an increased survival probability on the island if normally they are preferred by predators on the mainland. By contrast, small size may be an advantage for small herbivores to escape from predators on the mainland. In the absence of such predation pressure, the species gets larger on islands. Or there may be resource shortages on small islands, also favoring smaller variants. So over many generations their size decreases. But the exact causes are not very well understood as there are many other hypotheses that have been advanced to explain these phenomena, which can also be observed in caves, oases, isolated valleys and mountains (Raia & Meiri 2006; Herczeg et al. 2009; Benítez-López et al. 2021).

On the island of Flores in Indonesia insular dwarfism has independently arisen both in H. floresiensis and in modern pygmies. A study based on DNA shows indeed that there is no genetic link between both species (Tucci et al. 2018). Fossils from H. floresiensis, probably stemming from H. habilis, evidence that this hominin was present on the island from 100 to 60 ka. During this time, their size was finally dwarfed to an average height of about 106 cm. The pygmies, stemming from modern humans, settled there since 40 ka. Their average height was reduced to 145 cm. There are also other human pygmy populations in the world who were subjected to dwarfism but who are not less human because of their ability to produce offspring with modern humans (Ramm 1964 p. 215; Bonnette 2014 p. 166; Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 39). In the light of such great variability in body size due to natural selection alone, the question arises whether it is appropriate to classify H. habilis and H. floresiensis into two distinct species (sec. 3.2.3).

Another human feature used by paleontologists as a major criterion in the determination of human species is brain size (or weight). However, brain capacity is even more subject to variation compared to body mass. In modern humans, it varies from 900 to 2000 grams and in some rare cases even from 750 to 2200 grams, the smallest being those of tropic Ituri forest pygmies, who also have, as the name suggests, small stature (Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 1970). In fact, it does not seem that brain size can be exactly linked to intelligence. Some mammals like elephants and whales have larger brains than humans. Dawkins & Wong (2017 p. 102) reports that French writer and Nobel prizewinner Anatole France had a brain size of less than 1000 cm3 (or grams). It is well known that women have smaller brains than men but are not less intelligent. The number of neurons in the cerebral cortex would probably be a more pertinent indicator of intelligence and thereby a better species delimiter, but this information is not available anymore from fossils.

Such attempts to demarcate boundaries between species would be finger pointed as racism if they were done on living people today. One could oppose that the former bearers of the bones and their relatives are dead since long ago so nobody can be humiliated or glorified anymore. However, the point is that racism has been found guilty as unscientific, which even Darwinists admit meanwhile (Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 142). But why then proceed in the same manner on fossils, for which there is even less information available than for living persons?

This is not to say that there were no intermediates between apes and modern humans in the past as claimed by young-earth creationists (Morris 1974 pp. 171-176; Scheven 1982 p. 122). Even old-earth creationists tend to assume this view, although they are less rigid and open to new advances in science (Whorton & Roberts 2008 pp. 352-356). As discussed in section 2.5.4, common descent implies that there must be a slow transition from one species to another. So a transition from apes to humans is by far too abrupt. On the other hand, it is neither a gradual continuum as assumed by Darwinists (Bonnette 2014 p. 140; Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 51).

To sum up, it is doubtful that exact frontiers between species can be established from fossils alone. In any case not by just looking at cranes with the naked eye. When helped by associated archaeological findings like stone tools, ornaments, paintings, and so on, there is more hope to find demarcation lines. Cranial shape variation can also be analyzed mathematically via geometric three-dimensional landmark data. This is a much more promising technique, showing that there are indeed frontiers between the most common Homo species (Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2198-2203).

 

3.2.2 The Rise of Human Traits

Until the 1960s, anthropologists regarded brain enlargement as the first evolutionary event that separated us from apes. Discoveries of fossils such as the Taung child (Australopithecus africanus) in 1924 and Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) in 1974 corrected this view. In fact, contrarily to chimpanzees and gorillas, their spinal cord entered the brain at the bottom of the skull, suggesting bipedalism. Brain capacity was in the same order as that of apes. So bipedality was the first evolutionary event on the path to hominization, brain enlargement came thereafter. Some consider that the second has been driven by the first (Coppens 1983 pp. 83-86; Brown 1990 pp. 17-18, 142; Reichholf 1998 pp. 34, 130-131; Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 115).

However, contrarily to what his name suggests, H. erectus was not the first human species to walk upright. Bipedalism is a form of locomotion that has been adopted by many species like birds, dinosaurs and mammals long before hominids. Despite this, the human orthograde posture and locomotion is unique compared to all bipedal animals and is thereby unprecedented (Foley 1995 pp. 41, 141; Niemitz 2010).

Many hypotheses have been advanced during the last century in order to explain under what selection pressure human bipedalism has arisen. Most of them have been rejected, but the debate is still ongoing. Until the early 1990s, most anthropologists defended a savanna scenario, according to which apes “came down from trees” to live in the savanna where standing on two feet provided several advantages, for instance, by detecting food resources and danger more easily when looking over the grasses in an upright position, by freeing the hands for tool use and so on (Niemitz 2010; Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 112; Tuomisto et al. 2018). Others claim that the apes living in trees evolved from ancestors that already stood on two feet in the savanna, otherwise there would not have been enough time to evolve human bipedalism, which requires far-reaching transformations in the skeleton (Foley 1995 p. 41; Reichholf 1998 pp. 128-141; Gowlett 2016). More recently, bipedality is considered to have evolved in a rather forested habitat (Niemitz 2010; Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 451) or a mosaic of woodlands, savanna and water bodies with considerable temporal fluctuations between climatically arid and wet periods (Tuomisto et al. 2018).

Another important physiological human trait is nakedness (Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 316), which appeared with early forms of H. erectus about 1.8-1.7 Ma (Klein 2009 p. 273). Human density of hair follicles does not differ significantly from our nearest primates. The difference is rather that most human body hairs are tinny and barely visible (Foley 1995 p. 142; Rantala 2007). Even though there are mammals that are naked too like elephants, rhinos, whales and others, human nakedness is special because our skin is able to sweat copiously. Perspiration is necessary for heat dissipation under heavy physical exertion to maintain tolerable body and brain temperatures (Klein 2009 p. 326). The human density of sweat glands is unparalleled in such a way that powerful horses and dogs would barely be able to keep up with us in a continuous performance as, for instance, a marathon (Foley 1995 pp. 141-142; Reichholf 1998 p. 142; Jablonski 2010).

Here again, there are numerous explanations for how human nakedness evolved, but none has gained general acceptance (Rantala 2007; Tuomisto et al. 2018). Without enumerating them all, it is worth mentioning some of them: Rantala (2007) proposes the parasite hypothesis, according to which humans lost their hair because a hairless skin is less prone to host parasites. But this does not explain our extraordinary capacity to sweat. According to Darwin, ancestral males chose females rather than the other way around as normally in the animal kingdom, and that they preferred hairless females (Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 317). However, Rantala (2007) objects that such sexual selection does not explain why hair was not shed from areas that are most sensitive to sexuality, that is, the reproductive organs. Furthermore, here again this does not explain why perspiration evolved.

One often proposes that hair in the groin and armpits serves to propagate sex pheromones (Reichholf 1998 p. 149; Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 320) and to help keep these zones lubricated during locomotion (Jablonski 2010). As for pheromones, however, none have been found for humans, even though they are widespread in the animal kingdom (Wysocki & Preti 2004). As for locomotion, why then do humans have neither pubic nor armpit hair when they learn to walk, that is, as toddlers? It is well known that children need more than adults to move around. However, they are not hindered whatsoever by the absence of lubrication at these areas. So such claims do not make any sense.

Another area from which hair was not removed is the head. While it is plausible to assert that head hair protects the brain from both cold and heat caused by solar radiation (Reichholf 1998 p. 149; Jablonski 2010; Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 320), it is not clear at all how this typically human trait could have been evolved through selection pressure because normally humans have no hair on their forehead. In other words, why should natural selection only lead to a partial protection of the brain? When explications through natural selection fail, one can always resort to sexual selection and suggest possible predilections of our ancestors. Suggestions are allowed – but only as long as they are not confused with science. Sexual preference is indeed very subjective, which is why there may be much variation in the extent of hair on other areas of the face and body among peoples living in different geographical regions (Foley 1995 p. 142). Also, what we perceive as a pretty or ugly face is very variable. This stands in opposition to the fact that all humans have hairless forefronts.

According to Reichholf (1997 pp. 146-147), a precondition for the evolution of perspiration was the availability of salt in the habitat of our ancestors because sweating not only needs much water but also salt. There is indeed much volcanism in the East African highlands, providing relatively high salt concentrations in shallow water places. Furthermore, the intense solar radiation of the highlands near the equator evaporates the water and heightens the concentration. Such water places are still used today by large animals. Reichholf concludes from this that elsewhere hominization could not have taken place.

Our perspiring skin having given a huge advantage as a cooling device to our forebears is the slightly preferred hypothesis among scientists (Rantala 2007; Tuomisto et al. 2018). The circumstances of this advantage are believed to be as follows: around 3 Ma, climate became cooler on earth such that regular rainfall and woods declined in the East African highlands, giving way to open savanna grasslands. This shifted the initially vegetarian diet of the hominids, who were forced to eat meat too, as revealed by animal bones butchered with stone tools around 2.6 million years ago. They were no hunters but scavengers, that is, they looked for animals that died naturally, possibly helped by vultures flying above the carcasses as indicators. In order to be there before the lions and hyenas, and bring the meat to safety, it was necessary to run quickly, all of which was sequentially solved in Australopithecus, H. habilis and eventually H. erectus about 1.6 Ma with bipedality, nakedness and perspiration to prevent overheating by the elevated activities (Reichholf 1998 pp. 132-145; Jablonski 2010). It is also thought that the increased intake of protein and phosphor by the carnivore diet accelerated the enlargement of the brain (Reichholf 1998 pp. 116-118; Gowlett 2016).

The use of stone tools and fire are typical human behavioral traits as well. Compared to wet tropical forests, it was more likely that bushfires were ignited naturally through lightning in the open savanna. Fire use is subdivided into three categories: foraging, protection and cooking, technology. Foraging can be observed in the animal world. For instance, cheetahs or birds may benefit from the confusion of preys fleeing natural fires. As bushfires kill small animals like rodents and lizards, they were possibly retrieved by hominins. This may also have accidentally cooked already dead bigger animals, thus improving the digestibility of the meat and conserving it for a longer time compared to raw meat. Roasted meat also tastes better. From this, they may have learned to stretch and maintain fire for cooking, protection against predators and warmth, which is believed to have occurred with H. erectus about 1.7 Ma. Later, fire was also used technologically for the production of stone tools, pottery and so on. Archaeology has unearthed only rare evidence of early fire, but some sites of burnt material and recognizable hearths were found from 1.5 Ma onward (Reichholf 1998 p. 179; Gowlett 2016).

Regardless of whether this East African savanna scenario is true or not, it seems to be coherent and causal. If true, would this prove that only natural causes have brought about all our typical physiological traits as claimed by Darwinists (Reichholf 1998 p. 169)? Not at all! It is not because a certain trait yields an advantage in a given environment that it is inevitably produced by nature. Natural or sexual selection can only act on already existing variation in the genome. However, novel traits imply novel genes, for which there is by far not enough time available in our universe to produce them naturally, as discussed in section 2.5.2. In fact, bipedality has a pronounced effect on the entire musculo-skeletal system (Foley 1995 p. 41). One of the most significant differences between human and chimpanzee DNA lies in the genes that control the properties of the skin (Jablonski 2010). The brain is our most complex organ (Reichholf 1998 p. 56), which cannot be constructed just by increasing the intake of protein and phosphor. So human traits are too different from animal traits to be created simply by selecting existing genetic variants that come closest to them.

 

3.2.3 Homo Habilis

The first fossils belonging to H. habilis were found in eastern Africa by the Leakey team in 1959-1964 after the discovery of Oldowan stone tools. In subsequent years, numerous other fossils were discovered, also in other parts of Africa, which led to the recognition of H. rudolfensis as a new early species contemporaneous with H. habilis. However, the taxonomic interpretation of these early fossils was and still is highly controversial. The fossils have been dated to about 2.5 Ma (Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2147-2162; Villmoare 2018). In more recent years, a mandible from Ethiopia has been found, dated to about 2.8 Ma and assigned to the genus Homo but without species designation. A tooth labeled KNM-ER 5431 from about the same time could represent the same species (Villmoare et al. 2015).

As the oldest hominin fossils outside Africa (Java and China) were assigned to H. erectus (see next section) and are younger than those of the same taxon found in Africa, H. erectus has been considered to be the first hominin to leave Africa. So earlier hominins like H. habilis, rudolfensis and ergaster were thought to have stayed on the continent (Reichholf 1998 pp. 88, 183; Klein 2009 p. 351; Scardia et al. 2021). This seemed to be confirmed by the excavations of five skulls, dated to about 1.8 Ma, in Dmanisi (Georgia) between 1991 and 2005.

As reported by paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall (Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2180-2184), the first fossil, a mandible, was attributed to H. erectus/ergaster by The discovery team led by David Lordkipanidze. With the unearthing of two skulls and a new mandible in 2000, the team then assigned the fossils to a new species dubbed H. georgicus, considered being an intermediate between H. habilis/rudolfensis and H. ergaster. After the discovery of a third skull in 2002, all fossils found until then were again allocated to H. erectus despite significant resemblance to H. habilis (Fleagle et al. 2010 pp. 225-242, 249, 277), just as a fourth skull discovered shortly thereafter, which seemed to be from an old person because it had only one tooth. The finding in 2005 of the fifth cranium, which is quite different from the others, was followed by a long period of indecision regarding the taxonomic position of all skulls. Only eight years later in 2013, the discovery team concluded that they were in front of what they called Homo ergaster erectus georgicus, causing Tattersall to comment:

If there is any substance whatever to this convoluted taxonomic judgment, systematists everywhere should be in mourning, because it effectively deprives morphology of any utility in systematics.

This triggered a debate between “splitters” and “lumpers”, that is, those who recognize several species in the Dmanisi fossils and those who see only one (Klotz 1972 p. 63; Fleagle et al. 2010 p. 250). Lordkipanidze et al. (2013), belonging to the latter, argued that it is the first time that five skulls are found at the same place and have about the same age, and that therefore Dmanisi adds to the growing evidence that intraspecific variation in fossil hominids tends to be misinterpreted as species diversity. They claim, furthermore, that their geometric morphometric analysis shows that shape variation among the Dmanisi hominids is congruent with variation in chimpanzees, bonobos and modern humans, from which they concluded that the variation in shape of the Dmanisi fossils must be understood as among the same species, namely H. erectus, thus justifying their unusual quadrinomen.

This did not convince their opponents (Schwartz, Tattersall & Chi 2014), who would have preferred to split the fossils into several species. They responded that “neither time nor place is necessarily related to systematic identity” and that “biology should be studied with, but not as, mathematics”, referring to geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, who invented the concept of macromutations dubbed hopefull monsters (sec. 2.5.1). Members of the discovery team (Zollikofer, León, Margvelashvili, Rightmire & Lordkipanidze 2014) answered them in the same year:

According to these authors, Dmanisi would now comprise at least four different hominid taxa and thus hold the world record in hominid paleospecies diversity documented at a single site that extends over a mere 40 m2, and probably over a mere couple of centuries.

They reiterated this claim in the following years, attributing the high variation to sexual dimorphism and age-related differences from subadult to very old (Rightmire et al. 2017; Rightmire et al. 2019). While it cannot completely be excluded that different species were present in Dmanisi around the same time because of geographical and temporal overlapping of human species in the past, in view of the very large extend of Eurasia and its very tiny population density at this time, this is mathematically nevertheless very improbable, especially for four different species. Unfortunately, such arguments are not able to persuade the splitters, so the debate goes on, even if the tone seems to have become more reconciliatory.

In fact, another prominent research team (Scardia et al. 2021), among them again Tattersall, continued to claim that there might be more than one species present at Dmanisi, especially with regard to skull 5. They also held that the other skulls should not be classified as either H. ergaster or H. erectus. But they agree that the Dmanisi remains belong to the very first early hominins to leave Africa, without proposing a clear taxon. However, H. erectus having emerged in eastern Africa about 1.8 Ma (see next section) and the Dmanisi fossils having about the same age, it would be more logical to assign them to H. habilis, since it is unlikely that H. erectus spread so rapidly out of Africa (Agustí & Lordkipanidze 2011; Ferring et al. 2011; Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2372). Thus, H. habilis georgicus would be a more adequate taxon for the Dmanisi fossils.

H. floresiensis is another hominin with a long controversial taxonomic history. Its remains, together with stone artifacts, were excavated between 2001 and 2004 on the island of Flores in eastern Indonesia and presents a mixture of australopith-like as well as more evolved features. Because of its small stature, it was nicknamed hobbit. Here again, the discoverers believed that they were dealing with a new species, suggesting that it descended from H. erectus, which supposedly arrived on Flores and then dwarfed on the island (Brown et al. 2004; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2282-2285). Klein (2009 pp. 722-723) thinks that this is an unlikely scenario since Flores was always separated from the mainland by at least 19 km. The age of the fossils was originally wrongly dated to about 38-12 ka, which has contributed to its controversy. Later, the stratigraphic deposits containing the fossils were indeed dated to 100 and 60 ka, whereas the associated stone tools range from about 190 to 50 ka (Sutikna et al. 2016).

Shortly after the introduction of the taxon in 2004, there were researchers claiming that H. floresiensis even descended from H. sapiens in combination with microcephaly or other pathological abnormalities, arguing that the reduction in size is too great to be explained by insular dwarfism alone. But the majority of these explanations have been rejected (Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2289). Many voices maintain the original view that it is a new species descended from H. erectus (Van den Bergh et al. 2016). Others believe that it evolved from a pre-erectus hominin or even from australopithecines (Brown & Maeda 2009; Argue et al. 2017). Thus, it seems that almost all possible combinations of views are defended by one paleoanthropologist or another.

More reasonably, Morwood & Jungers (2009) consider that the ancestor of H. floresiensis was not H. erectus but possibly H. habilis, while maintaining that it dwarfed after arriving on Flores. As H. habilis is smaller than H. erectus, this would better explain the morphology of H. floresiensis. They thus challenge the traditional view that H. erectus was the first hominin to leave Africa around 1.7-1.9 Ma (Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2288-2289), which is based on the remains found in China and Java but more recently also on the Dmanisi fossils (Fleagle et al. 2010 pp. 277-278).

In fact, H. floresiensis produced Oldowan stone tools, which are normally attributed to the earliest hominins in Africa. According to the archaeological evidence, the Oldowan industry lasted at least from about 2.6 to 1.6 Ma, when it was replaced by the Acheulean industry, attributed to H. erectus and characterized by hand axes, cleavers and large flakes (Klein 2009 p. 253). Oldowan tools were also found in Dmanisi as well as in China and Java. Furthermore, their dating suggests a slow dispersal from Africa to even further parts of Eurasia of the hominins that produced them. Most authors associate the tools with H. erectus and thereby support the traditional idea that it was the first to exit Africa (Klein 2009 pp. 350, 391; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2375, 2452; Scardia et al. 2021). But the tools rather suggest a single dispersal of H. habilis, even though some authors express reservations about applying Oldowan stone tools exclusively to early humans (Fleagle et al. 2010 pp. 52, 278). Yet, the same kinds of tools are also recently discovered in Jordan and Shangchen (China), dating back to 2.5 and 2.1 Ma, respectively, which implies that pre-erectus hominins left Africa (Zhu et al. 2018; Scardia et al. 2021).

Argue et al. (2017) examined the question whether H. floresiensis is a descendant of H. erectus or a late survivor of an earlier hominin lineage, using an extended dataset of fossils from Australopithecus and Homo species, which, according to the authors, has not been attempted before. They reject a close relationship of H. floresiensis with H. ergaster, H. georgicus, H. naledi, H. erectus as well as Australopithecus species. They also dismiss a pathological evolution from modern humans. Instead, they favor a long lineage originating in Africa more than 1.75 Ma. This would mean that H. habilis is a possible or even favored ancestor of H. floresiensis, which, furthermore, need not be a new species. As discussed above, natural selection can significantly alter morphology, especially over such a long period from 1.75 Ma until about 100 ka when the ancestors of H. floresiensis are supposed to have arrived on Flores in an environment considerably different from Africa. However, it cannot produce new species but only intraspecific variation. To account for this and also to prevent that certain fossils are assigned to “wastebin” species (Tattersall 2009; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 1061, 2073, 2209; Scardia et al. 2021 p. 3), more subspecies are required (Klotz 1972 p. 63), in other words, trinomial taxa. In view of this, the remains from Flores could be termed Homo habilis floresiensis.

 

3.2.4 Homo Erectus

Inspired by Darwin’s Origin of Species, Thomas H. Huxley wondered whether the bones of an intermediate species between apes and humans might lie somewhere in strata awaiting the discovery by a still unborn paleontologist. In 1866, German biologist Ernst Haeckel proposed the name Pithecanthropus (ape-man) for this hypothetical missing link, which inspired Dutch paleoanthropologist Eugène Dubois to search for it in the hope to corroborate Darwin’s hypothesis of slow gradual evolution (Brown 1990 p. 13).

According to another theory of Darwin (1874 p. 155), the cradle of humanity was in Africa because this is the living place of gorillas and chimpanzees, which he considered the closest living ancestors of humans. By contrast, Charles Lyell and Alfred R. Wallace alleged that humans were closer to gibbons and orangutans, which live in Southeast Asia. Dubois preferred the Out of Asia scenario and thereby embarked for Java, where he indeed discovered a molar, a skullcap and a femur near the village of Trinil in 1891/2. These fossils seemed to correspond to his expectations. He assigned them to a new species, which he accordingly named Pithecanthropus erectus, better known as Java Man, thus triggering an unprecedented controversy about its status as missing link (Brown 1990 pp. 14-17; Klein 2009 pp. 189, 282; Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2168).

In the first half of the 20h century, numerous similar fossils were found near Beijing and elsewhere in China. They were assigned to hominins nicknamed Peking Man and contributed to the evidence that there is indeed a species between apes and modern humans. However, some evolutionists as well as creationists did not see it this way and sank them into H. sapiens, while others assigned them to all kinds of different species, among them also apes and australopiths. In 1950, Ernst Mayr allocated them all to H. erectus. So here again, almost all possible taxonomic combinations were proposed (Klotz 1972 pp. 349, 375; Morris 1974 p. 174; Dembski & McDowell 2008 p. 70; Klein 2009 pp. 283-286; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2169, 2191-2211).

These fossils seemed to confirm the Out of Asia hypothesis. However, this view crumbled in the 1960s and later when similar but older fossils were excavated in Africa. Some of them are as old as 1.9 Ma, while in Europe the oldest Acheulean tools attributed to H. erectus are much younger. The youngest fossil is from Ngandong (Java) with a recent dating of about 112 ka (Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2169-2170, 2191, 2393; Rizal et al. 2020). This suggests an Out of Africa dispersal if all fossils are considered to belong to H. erectus.

The oldest and one of the most important European excavation places, including several sites, is located in Atapuerca, Spain. At the Gran Dolina site, numerous human bone fragments attributed to four individuals and flaked stones dated to over 780 ka were unearthed in the 1990s. The taxonomic controversy regarding these fossils is reminiscent of that concerning the Dmanisi remnants. In fact, a local team found that they belonged to teenagers and young adults, who may have died by cannibalism, and proposed a new species between H. erectus and Neanderthals or even modern humans because one of them has presumably a modern face, although only a part if it has been conserved. They named the species H. antecessor, meaning explorer or The first from Latin (Castro et al. 2007; Klein 2009 pp. 365-366; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 832-833).

Unsurprisingly, not everyone agreed with these assertions. Jean-Jacques Hublin, for instance, argued that “many of my colleagues will be uncomfortable with creating a new species, because it is mainly based on the facial features of one juvenile”, an opinion to which also adheres Philip Rightmire, Chris Stringer and others (Gibbons 1997). On the other hand, Richard Klein (2005)does not support the idea that H. antecessor is an ancestor of the heidelbergensis/neanderthalensis lineage but considers it an offshoot of H. ergaster, which, in his view, evolved abruptly about 1.8 Ma and finally disappeared after a failed attempt to colonize southern Europe. So here again there is great disagreement between splitters and lumpers as well as among themselves. The first see new species in H. ergaster, erectus, floresiensis, antecessor, heidelbergensis and neanderthalensis, while the second sink all of them into H. erectus sensu lato (Wood & Lonergan 2008). As often, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

More recently, there are authors who see a link of H. antecessor with the Asian H. erectus (Wagner et al. 2010; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2206-2211), which is also supported by a Spanish team, insisting openly that the Dolina fossils should be assigned to H. erectus (Trafí et al. 2018). The same team also proposes a connection between the Gran Dolina fossils and specimens of H. ergaster that lived in North Africa via the Strait of Gibraltar, which in turn is dismissed by the researchers who named the Dolina remnants (Castro & Martinón-Torres 2019; Trafí et al. 2020; Castro & Martinón-Torres 2020). But it seems that they concede that the teeth from Dolina share characteristics with Chinese H. erectus (Castro et al. 2021). In any case, if the African and Asian H. erectus as well as H. antecessor are considered a single species, it is also possible that this hominin reached Spain via the Levantine corridor instead of crossing the Strait of Gibraltar (Fleagle et al. 2010 p. 170; Klein 2009 pp. 367-371; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2375-2376).

A similar debate is raging about the taxon H. heidelbergensis, the type specimen of which is indeed just a mandible found in 1907 in Mauer near Heidelberg (Germany) dated to about 610 ka (Wagner et al. 2010). Identifying a taxon just based on a mandible is indeed not very appropriate. The same is valid for the tibia found in Boxgrove, which was dated to about 500 ka and assigned to H. cf. heidelbergensis by its discoverers (Roberts et al. 1994). The “cf.” means that the allocation to heidelbergensis is uncertain (Bengtson 1988). In fact, these specimens could just as well be assigned to H. erectus (Brown 1990 pp. 196-197; Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 29).

Other more informative fossils assigned to this hominin in the past have more recently been allocated to H. heidelbergensis by some authors. But there is no consensus about this either (Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 338, 2109-2110, 2180, 2192, 2221-2233). Thereby, given such a great uncertainty, some fossils assigned to H. heidelbergensis and H. rhodesiensis could just as well be partitioned between H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis (Klein 2009 p. 463; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 30, 2007).

The emergence of the African H. erectus (or H. ergaster) seems to coincide with a transition from the Oldowan to the Acheulean approximately 1.8 Ma, which some attribute to the evolution of higher cognitive abilities (Klein 2009 pp. 174-182, 372-377, 432-433; Beyene et al. 2013; Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2455). This is clearly a Darwinian concept, according to which anatomical changes occur simultaneously with behavioral evolution. However, when looking more closely to the fossil and archaeological record, this simultaneity cannot be observed. As seen in the previous section, H. habilis may already have emerged 2.8 Ma while the oldest known Oldowan (Mode 1) tools date back to 2.5 Ma. This lag may be due to the incompleteness of the fossil and archaeological records. Though simultaneity of both cannot be observed in other species either, as we shall see.

Regarding H. erectus, the oldest fossil so far of this hominin is a fragment of a skull (KNM-ER 2598) from eastern Africa dated to nearly 1.9 Ma (Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2192). The first tools were discovered in Saint-Acheul in northern France and named after this excavation site. But the oldest Acheulean tools, like the fossils, were only discovered later in eastern Africa, from where this industry spread into Eurasia and later Europe. The Acheulean distinguishes itself from the Oldowan by deliberately shaped symmetrical stone tools as well as novel artifacts, in particular bifacial hand axes. This Mode 2 technology, as it is also called, appears about two hundred thousand years after the emergence of H. erectus and it is not a sudden punctuated event followed by prolonged stability (Wynn 2002; Foley & Lahr 2003; Fleagle et al. 2010 pp. 52-54; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2452-2455; Gallotti & Mussi 2018 pp. 3, 53, 118).

A related question is whether H. erectus exclusively used Acheulean technology once invented. John J. Shea, professor at Stony Brook University in New York, speculates that hominins in the conquest of novel territories are focused on low-cost food sources requiring minimal needs for stone tools. Only after settlement and population growth would the demand for higher-cost food have necessitated the use of more sophisticated technology such as large cutting tools (LCTs) like handaxes and cleavers. As a result, Oldowan tools found in Eurasia and Europe dated from about 2 to 1 Ma were presumably made because of such conquest phases, wherefore an assignment to specific hominins is uncertain. He also advocates that the knapping of both Oldowan pepple-cores and Acheulean LCTs, produces flakes that are themselves used for various cutting tasks. Thus, they do not allow a definite attribution to a specific Paleolithic stage nor to knapping skills and therefore to a specific hominin (Fleagle et al. 2010 pp. 47-64).

However, if one assumes that a group of hominins living in Africa expanded or moved their habitat by a single kilometer per generation, one cannot really speak of conquest. It is merely a rather fortuitous enlargement of their territory into the neighborhood, just as new plant or animal species would do. So assuming that the distance overland from East Africa to the farthest point of Eurasia, say Java, is about 20’000 km, then they would have needed 20’000 generations to do so, or 400’000 years if we assume a generation length of 20 years. In other words, they would have had plenty of time to reach Java from 2 to 1 Ma, not by determined rapid conquest or whatever but by a simple random and undirected discovery of the nearest habitat. This would not require a reduction to low-cost food and a parsimonious production of primitive Oldowan tools. Admittedly, the expansion may also have been a succession of several phases of relatively rapid dispersals followed by constant settlements.

Incorrect classifications of fossils may also bias the assignment of specific tools to specific hominins. As discussed in the previous section, the Dmanisi and Flores fossils are mainly assigned to H. erectus, while the corresponding tools are of Oldowan type. If these fossils are assigned to H. habilis instead, there is no need to assume that H. erectus fled to Dmanisi in a veritable spurt shortly after its first appearance in Africa based on the fact that the fossils there have about the same age. The same may be valid regarding other excavation sites. This does not exclude that in some cases this hominin might also have made such tools because of the reasons mentioned above. However, H. habilis certainly made no Acheulean tools, just as H. erectus made no Mousterian or Aurignacian tools attributed to Neanderthals and modern humans, respectively. So stone tools can nevertheless help to constrain taxonomic assignments of fossils.

 

3.2.5 Homo Neanderthalensis

In 1856, a strange skeleton was unearthed in Germany’s Neander Valley during a time when the literal biblical age of the earth was already under attack from geologists. The fossils instigated much confusion, as the most exotic explications were proposed for its unusual appearance. After the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859, Thomas H. Huxley, a great defender of his new theory, concluded that it was not an intermediate between gorilla and man – despite its apelike and brutish look – but a human specimen reverted to a few gorilloid traits. But he wondered whether such an intermediate could be buried somewhere, as mentioned in the previous section. In 1864, Irish anatomist William King suggested that the fossil represents an extinct human species, for which he coined the name H. neanderthalensis after its discovery location (valley means Tal in German then spelled Thal). This was the first time that fossils from human species other than ours were recognized. However, in the first half of the 20th century, they were considered a subspecies of modern humans. Over the next hundred years, several other Neanderthal fossils were found in southern Spain, Belgium, France, Croatia, Israel, Iraq and as far as Uzbekistan (Brown 1990 pp. 11-13; Sykes 2001 pp. 112-113; Klein 2009 pp. 436-440; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2244-2245).

The earliest Neanderthal remains were discovered at the Sima de los Huesos site (Spain) recently dated to between 400 and 600 ka (Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2245). The first genetic study based on Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA extracted from fossil bones was done by Krings et al. (1997). The sequence they examined points to a last human-Neanderthal common ancestor at approximately 500 ka, also taking into account the fossil and archaeological record. Based on both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, Green et al. (2006) calculated an average human-Neanderthal DNA sequence divergence time of 516 ka. However, not only their DNA samples were contaminated (Wall & Kim 2007) but this date also depends on the human-chimpanzee divergence time, which has a lot of uncertainty. Nevertheless, more recent studies come to similar conclusions, but with a large statistical error of roughly ± 200 ky (Klein 2009 p. 638, Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2321).

The debate on Neanderthal man is not closed. According to the multi-regionalists, the species evolved from European H. erectus or H. heidelbergensis just as modern Chinese and Australians allegedly evolved from Peking and Java man in Asia, respectively. The opposite camp – the replacement school – contests this view, arguing that H. erectus is an evolutionary dead end and was replaced by new hominins that evolved in Africa and dispersed from there. Among these in turn, there is still discussion about different possible scenarios. The disagreement over whether Neanderthals represent a distinct species or a subspecies of modern humans is also still ongoing (Klotz 1972 pp. 368-375; Pun 1982 pp. 116-117; Sykes 2001 p. 113; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2210, 2245, 2262-2263, 2378). This taxonomic chaos is often called The muddle in the middle Pleistocene, involving controversial assignments of a number of fossils to H. erectus, heidelbergensis, rhodesiensis, neanderthalensis and other hominins (Athreya & Hopkins 2021).

Addressing this mess, Roksandic et al. (2022) propose that the taxa H. heidelbergensis and H. rhodesiensis be abandoned by lumping the corresponding fossils into a new species they named H. bodoensis based on a cranium from Bodo (Ethiopia). They also argue that fossils of H. heidelbergensis with derived Neanderthal traits, including the Mauer mandible, should be considered early Neanderthals. Delson & Stringer (2022) consider that this name change violates the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, while Sarmiento & Pickford (2022) counter that Roksandic et al. are “muddying the muddle in the middle even more”. In the preface of Henke & Tattersall 2015 (p. xxv), readers are encouraged to draw their own conclusions about this confusion.

So the scenario favored here is that the earliest Neanderthals did not originate in Europe but in Africa and dispersed from there analogously to the former hominins (Reichholf 1998 pp. 9, 225; Klein 2009 pp. 312, 330). This implies that their ancestor was African H. erectus, giving rise to an African H. neanderthalensis. This immediately points to H. rhodesiensis, the type specimen of which is the skull from Broken Hill of former Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), recently redated to 299 ± 25 ka (Grün et al. 2020), the oldest specimen of this taxon being the cranium from Bodo (Conroy et al. 2000; Hublin 2013). It has been found above a vitric tephra horizon, that is, a volcanic ash layer, which has been dated at different locations. The youngest has an age of 0.55 ± 0.03 Ma. Despite this, the cranium is said to be about 0.6 million years old (Clark et al. 1994), which is surprising given that it comes from above the layer. Furthermore, the dating should be reevaluated according to Renne (2000).

Most authorities assign H. rhodesiensis to H. heidelbergensis as there are no significant anatomical differences between both (McBrearty & Brooks 2000 p. 480; Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 30; Fortes-Lima et al. 2022 p. 15). There are also other fossils that fall into the same category (Foley 1997; Rightmire 1998; Rightmire 2008; Bae 2010; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2221-2239). H. heidelbergensis spread from eastern Africa into Europe and adapted to the colder climatic conditions through natural selection during several glaciations, evolving the robust stature of H. neanderthalensis (Reichholf 1998 p. 200; Klein 2009 pp. 726-727; Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2261). The large brains of Neanderthals slightly exceeding those of modern humans must also be understood as a result of their increased body proportions caused by the cold northern climate. In fact, when it comes to brain to body ratio (encephalization), they have even lower values (Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 52). Therefore, as such morphological changes do not involve speciation, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis represent the same species (Klein 2009 p. 738; Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2007). So instead of assigning the corresponding fossils to H. bodoensis, as propsed by Roksandic et al. (2022), they could simply be regarded as belonging to a subspecies of H. neanderthalensis or vice versa (McBrearty & Brooks 2000 p. 480).

Another issue is the question whether H. neanderthalensis is a distinct species or subspecies of H. sapiens. As most often a binomen instead of a trinomen is used for this hominin, one can conclude that most authorities consider it a separate species. This was apparently confirmed in 1997 when Svante and others succeeded for the first time in extracting ancient mitochondrial DNA, namely from the skeleton of the Neander Valley, pointing to a last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans between 317 and 741 ka. It turned out to be clearly different from that of modern humans, which was interpreted at the time that no interbreeding between the two species had taken place, despite the fact that they shared the same habitat for several thousand years (Reichholf 1998 p. 202; Sykes 2001 pp. 124-126; Klein 2009 pp. 462-463; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2255, 2263; Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 73), in other words, that they are different species according to the not unproblematic biological species concept, according to which a species is a group of individuals that can produce fertile offspring (Klotz 1972 p. 49; Foley 1995 p. 60; Grimaldi & Engel 2005 p. 6).

Some years later, however, new studies based on ancient nuclear DNA came to the conclusion that Neanderthals share more genetic variants with living modern non-Africans than with Africans, in other words, that they indeed interbred outside Africa. It was estimated that the modern human genetic pool has been introgressed by about 1 to 4% of Neanderthal alleles since the last hundred thousand years (Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 61, 2031, 2392). More recently, this figure was further refined to 1.5-2.1%. Claims by multi-regionalists for a larger contribution cannot be supported by the current evidence. Such a low level of interbreeding is not inconsistent with Neanderthals being a separate species. Furthermore, the modern human genome is depleted from Neanderthal alleles in the X chromosomes and in genes expressed in the testes. This evidence strongly suggests male infertility or decreased fertility for Neanderthal-modern human hybrids and a high level of genetic incompatibility among the two taxa (Sankararaman et al. 2014; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2255-2256, 2264, 2303, 2315), supporting their separate species status, even though this view is not shared by everybody (Dawkins & Wong 2017 p. 76).

The archaeological record is also interpreted in different ways. There are again mainly those who advocate that culture marches in lockstep with brain and cognitive evolution, while others see a lag between both. Still others recognize no clear connection and attribute everything to variability (McNabb et al. 2004; Stout et al. 2014; McNabb & Cole 2015; Li et al. 2018). The first distinguish indeed the early from the later Acheulean associated with H. erectus and the African H. heidelbergensis, respectively, considering this transition a rapid change due to an increase in brain size in the absence of an increase in body size. It is believed that this led to enhanced cognitive capabilities that immediately enabled the new species to produce more sophisticated tools (Wynn 2002; Klein 2009 pp. 182, 378-379; Hodgson 2011; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2223, 2233-2234, 2238, 2442; Li et al. 2017; Li et al. 2018; Key & Dunmore 2018; Shipton et al. 2019).

However, the late Acheulean is thought to be characterized by the emergence of more finely knapped tools displaying enhanced symmetry, especially in the production of handaxes. It is not possible to date this transition precisely because it is continuous, as even H. erectus already produced more primitive symmetric hand axes from about 1.4 Ma upwards (Wynn 2002). Beyene et al. (2013) report indeed that at the Konso Formation (southern Ethiopia) the younger ∼0.85-Ma Acheulean is characterized by considerably more refined handaxes by comparison to the >1.2-Ma assemblages there. Also, Shipton et al. (2019) mention that there seems to be a marked increase in skill over the hundreds of thousands of years of the Acheulean at the Olduvai Gorge (eastern Africa) and that many authors adhere to the view that there is progression through time in the Acheulean (Foley & Lahr 2003).

Further support for this is the Fauresmith industry from South Africa, which is considered by some as transitional between the Acheulean and the subsequent Middle Stone Age (MSA). One of the earliest artifacts is a remarkably thin and extensively flaked handaxe found in Kathu Pan (South Africa) dated to about 700-400 ka (Porat et al. 2010). At the same site, stone tips of spears have also been found and the first use of earth pigments for visual purposes around 500 ka was confirmed. Similar artifacts from about the same time were also unearthed in Boxgrove (England) and elsewhere. They are considered to be in correlation with a behavioral shift due to the appearance of H. heidelbergensis (Wilkins et al. 2012; Wilkins & Chazan 2012; Stout et al. 2014; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2453-2455; Watts et al. 2016; Kuman et al. 2020; Dapschauskas et al. 2022). But if this species emerged for the first time in eastern Africa around 500 ka, it is more likely that these tools from outside its original location were produced by H. erectus, which would underline that this hominin was capable of improving its technology over time – just like modern humans.

New methods of tool production were only invented in the MSA, in particular core preparation for the purpose of obtaining a flake of predetermined size and shape. This Levallois technique was first discovered in Levallois-Perret near Paris in the 1860s and is part of the Mode 3 or Mousterian industry assigned to Neanderthals. The oldest artifacts dated to around 300 ka were found in eastern Africa, even though some authors see an earlier age (Herries 2011; Gilbert et al. 2016; Wurz 2018). Depending on the location, they were used together with Mode 2 tools, but Acheulean handaxes become rarer once Levallois industry is established. Proto-Levallois tools were also present, which suggests that technological change involves both the ancestor and new species. Therefore, like the Acheulean, the Mousterian is not a punctuated event but a long process while displaying a great deal of diversity, which again shows that lithic technology is a delayed rather than immediate result of anatomical change based on learned behavior (Foley & Lahr 1997; Panter-Brick et al. 2001 pp. 116-117; Klein 2009 p. 379; Tryon et al. 2013; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 857, 2442, 2454, 2460-2469; Deino et al. 2018).

 

3.2.6 Homo Sapiens

Ancient bones of modern humans dated to about 30 ka were first found in 1868 in Cro-Magnon (France), which is why our species is often called accordingly. Subsequently, other fossils were found, predominantly in Europe but later also elsewhere, which led to a wide spectrum of evolutionary proposals (Sykes 2001 p. 114; Klein 2009 pp. 617-619). The oldest fossils dated to around 200 ka come from eastern Africa, which eventually led to the out-of-Africa theory, standing in contradiction to all kinds of favored multi-regionalist views (Klein 2009 p. 738-739; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2300-2307; Nielsen et al. 2017; Vidal et al. 2022). The date of 200 ka was also confirmed by genetic studies (Cann et al. 1987; Klein 2009 pp. 615, 631-638), as discussed in section 2.5.4. Tattersall (2009) thinks that the new species emerged “in a single change in gene regulation”, which is remarkable for a Darwinist.

This consensus changed when Hublin et al. (2017) assigned fossils from Jebel Irhoud (Morocco), excavated as early as 1960 and the following year, to H. sapiens. They were initially dated to about 40 ka and considered to belong to an African form of Neanderthals. Excavations in 2017 by another team allowed a new dating to about 315 ka, presumably shifting the origin of our species about 100 thousand years into the past. Jean-Jaques Hublin and colleagues also hold that the emergence of H. sapiens was gradually and not restricted to a small region (like eastern Africa) but involved the whole African continent. According to Callaway (2017), Hublin stated:

Until now, the common wisdom was that our species emerged probably rather quickly somewhere in a ‘Garden of Eden’ that was located most likely in sub-Saharan Africa. I would say the Garden of Eden in Africa is probably Africa — and it’s a big, big garden.

So here we see resurfacing the old concept of polygenism, to which still other paleoanthropologists adhere (Gibbons 2017; Stringer & Galway-Witham 2017; Scerri et al. 2018). However, Meneganzin et al. (2022) argue that, according to Mayr, speciation is most likely to occur in small populations and thereby reject the Pan-African multi-regional hypothesis of Hublin et al. (2017). They also hold that speciation is not gradual but a rapid process, referring to the punctuated equilibrium concept of Gould and Eldredge (sec. 2.5.1), and criticize the assignment of the Jebel Irhoud material to modern humans as the skull is visibly elongated like that of a Neanderthal. The same is criticized by María Martínon-Torres, a paleoanthropologist at University College London, stressing that the remains from Jebel Irhoud lack features that characterize our species, such as a prominent chin and forehead. Also, Jeffrey Schwartz of the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, objects that too many different-looking fossils have been lumped together with our species (Callaway 2017).

As one believed for decades that Neanderthals evolved in Europe just like our species and that they come closest to us among all archaics, it was assumed that they are our ancestor. But when one realized that modern humans emerged in Africa, one concluded that they could not be our ancestors (Pun 1982 p. 116; Reichholf 1998 p. 90; Klein 2009 pp. 435-436). However, many consider that we evolved from the African H. heidelbergensis lineage (Foley 1995 p. 93; Klein 1995; Reichholf 1998 p. 163; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2007, 2222; Hublin et al. 2017). So if H. heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis and H. neanderthalensis are considered the same species, as discussed in the previous section, they are nevertheless our ancestors.

As usual, the archaeological record lags behind the anatomical emergence: the oldest modern humans from around 200 ka produced MSA tools (Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2382; Hublin et al. 2017), which began earlier about 300-250 ka according to recent dating methods, as discussed in the previous section. Hence, they were also produced by Neanderthals (Foley & Lahr 2003; Shea 2003; Klein 2009 p. 644; Tattersall 2009; Cieri et al. 2014; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2443, 2456, 2469-2470; Fortes-Lima et al. 2022 pp. 45-46). This transition between the MSA and LSA (late Stone Age) is rather smooth. So here again there is no simultaneity between the emergence of anatomy and behavior of the new species (Foley & Lahr 1997; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2470-2477). Other authors (McBrearty 2000; Zilhão 2007) are proponents of the no-revolution scenario but nevertheless defend the simultaneity of the emergence of the MSA and H. sapiens some 300 ka.

Cieri et al. (2014) argue that a feminization of the human skeletal morphology occurred around 80 ka, accompanied in particular by a reduction of the prominent brow ridges. They attribute this change to increased population size, which favored selection of individuals with increased social tolerance capacities, a characteristic rather attributed to women than to men, resulting in craniofacial feminization through reduction of male hormones like testosterone and androgen. However, in the same paper some scholars express their doubts about this scenario, so it is uncertain whether this morphological change – which undoubtedly occurred – can be attributed to natural selection alone or has to be considered a speciation event.

Some paleoanthropologists also argue that humans around this time became able to express themselves in enhanced language due to neurological or even genetic change. Earlier hominins have certainly also been able to communicate with each other but less efficiently (Klein 2009 pp. 641-652). If true, this would have marked the onset of the so-called cumulative technology evolution linked to oral transmission of know-how from one generation to the next (Cieri et al. 2014). It is thought that these new technologies enabled humans to migrate out of Africa to face up to the harsher conditions of Eurasia. Another consequence would have been the rise of behavioral modernity, which is a term used to designate a change in culture inferred from art objects, paintings, blade technology, music instruments, and others, dated back to about 50-10 ka (Foley & Lahr 1997; Klein 2009 pp. 648, 742; Tattersall 2009; Tattersall 2016).

As with the previous cultural transitions, there is debate about whether behavioral modernity arose abruptly due to a genetic enhancement at the same time 50 ka or gradually before 50 ka asynchronously to anatomy (Klein 1995; Klein 2009 pp. 289, 306, 434, 648-650, 744-748; Nowell 2010). It is taken as granted that intentionally perforated shell beads used for body decoration are an important indicator of behavioral modernity. Such objects are rare before 40 ka but more widespread thereafter, which suggests a gradual emergence (Henshilwood et al. 2002; d’Errico et al. 2009; d’Errico et al. 2012; Cieri et al. 2014). In fact, the earliest such objects of ornamentation attributed to modern humans have been found at Blombos Cave in South Africa (Henshilwood et al. 2004; d’Errico et al. 2005). Two pieces of engraved ochre, showing abstract geometry attributed to advanced cognition, are similar findings from the same place (Henshilwood et al. 2002). These objects are dated to slightly less than 80 ka. To mention also a four to six old infant interred with a personal ornament dated to about 74 ka, which is the oldest known modern human burial (d’Errico & Backwell 2016). Perforated shells have also been found in Taforalt (Morocco) dated to about 82 ka. On the other hand, the dating and interpretation of similar artifacts from Oued Djebbana (Algeria), Skhul and Qafzeh Cave (Israel) remain uncertain (Vanhaeren et al. 2006; Bouzouggar et al. 2007).

Powell et al. (2009) propose that a key factor of the cultural boom 50 ka may have been increased population size followed by expansion into new environments or increased intergroup interaction, stimulating the invention of new technologies, while Klein (2009 pp. 289, 434) suggests that a sudden development of greatly enhanced capacity for innovation due to a speciation event within the human lineage produced fully modern humans about 50 ka similar to the sudden genetic changes that already occurred for H. habilis, ergaster and heidelbergensis. If confirmed, he argues, only fully modern people thereafter could be called H. sapiens, older African populations would require another name. Even though it is laudable that a Darwinist recognizes sudden genetic changes, the feminization of the human morphology as well as other enhancements 80 ka on one hand and behavioral modernity 50 ka on the other are probably both related to each other by the usual temporal mismatch between genetic and cultural change because initial sporadic signs of the latter only sporadically emerge at the time of the former.

 

3.2.7 Out of Eden

Let us summarize the repeating patterns discussed in the previous sections: an anatomically distinct new human species emerges from a former one followed by a slow shift in the use of stone tools and other behaviors. This clearly does not support the Darwinian view that morphology runs hand in hand with behavior. In fact, selection on more skilled knappers supposed to produce new competitive behaviors cannot happen in the complete absence of such behaviors, as presented more generally in section 2.5.1.

But this lag between anatomy and behavior does support creation: God has “thrown us on earth” (sec. 2.1.2) because of our search for independence (sec. 2.2.1). In this world, humans have to toil the ground to eat bread (Gen 1:17-19). So they had to figure out by themselves how to do this. In general, all has to be learned from scratch: the production and use of tools, fire, clothes, habitats, language, how to cure from sickness and injuries, and so on, God just giving us the inherent ability to do so. This explains why we have been able to ever improve our technology and culture since 200 ka, while remaining anatomically exactly the same. Darwinists have no answer to this fact. Furthermore, creation implies monogenism, which in turn implies that the initial population size of the new human species was slim. As a consequence, the appearance of new industries was slow in the beginning, which is confirmed by the thin archaeological record of improved industries after the emergence of a new species.

All human species emerged in eastern Africa, which is another pattern that does not square with Darwinism at all. Assuming a random evolution, there is no reason why all human species should have emerged at the same place. On the contrary, what should be observed in this case is a complete chaos, some species evolving in Africa, others in Asia, Australia or America at different times. This is obviously not the case. Furthermore, they all dispersed from Africa into the world to get extinct in this diaspora, except for H. sapiens because we are still omnipresent on the globe. But this may change in a near future...

A common denominator is also that all four human species emigrated from Africa into Eurasia. The reason why hominins left Africa is a matter of debate. Different models have been proposed, whereby climatic changes are favored. As for the dispersal of H. habilis, this is not a topic of great debate, the first expansion out of Africa being traditionally assigned to H. erectus (Fleagle et al. 2010 p. 277). However, if there are indeed remains of this first human species outside Africa, it has undoubtedly left the continent. Furthermore, Oldowan tools are unmistakably found beyond Africa, being possibly erroneously assigned to H. erectus (sec. 3.2.3).

There have been several climatic events in the early Pleistocene when H. habilis emerged, which led to major cooling and increased aridity in Africa and beyond. The Sahara and the Arabian Peninsula formed an impenetrable barrier, such that getting out of sub-Saharan Africa was as much of a challenge as getting out of the continent. Lahr (Fleagle et al. 2010 pp. 27-43) reports that during this time there were two short wet periods, allowing the formation of bodies of water and making these deserts green, such that they could be crossed. The exact timing and circumstances of that first wave out of Africa are still unclear. It may be that the climatic conditions that allowed them to leave the continent were at the same time the reason why they have been pushed out (Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2374).

The same scenario happened for H. erectus: when it emerged in eastern Africa, the climate had turned again cool and dry, blocking its expansion out of sub-Saharan Africa. But during wet phases the deserts flourished and could be inhabited both by animals and early humans who hunted them. Finally, this allowed them to escape through different corridors, possibly at 1.4 Ma and 0.7 Ma (Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2343). When cold and dry climate returned, the sea level again dropped, such that H. erectus could reach dry-footed into Sumatra and Java. Furthermore, the impenetrable jungles of the tropical rainforests shrank, giving way to grasslands and game that fed on them. However, all reverted with the rainy interglacials, robbing H. erectus of its livelihood. This kind of hominin died out outside of Africa, being crushed, as it were, by the spreading forests (Reichholf 1998 pp. 88, 183-186, 225, 258; Klein 2009 pp. 303, 349-350).

Idem for H. neanderthalensis alias H. heidelbergensis who left Africa about 200 ka, that is, at about the same time as modern humans emerged in eastern Africa, also heading first into Asia and then Europe (Reichholf 1998 p. 200, 225; Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2372). There is not much debate about this topic because there are still many scholars who think that both H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis evolved in Europe. Thereby, they do not link them to any dispersal out of Africa. But if these taxa and H. rhodesiensis as well as others are the same (sec. 3.2.5), then there has well been such an out-of-Africa event, probably under the same circumstances in which the former species lived, since in their time the deserts were just as well impassable during dry periods and greened during wet ones because of the alternating glacials and interglacials during the Pleistocene (fig. 15).

As reported by Reichholf (1997 pp. 188-200), the Neanderthals were at the mercy of these recurring climatic changes. He argues that it was not the wet but cold climate that made them thrive. It made retreat the forests to make place to the tundra, which fed large mammals such as the mammoth the Neanderthals hunted. He further argues (pp. 208-223) that when the climate turned wet again, the situation reversed to their disadvantage as in the case of H. erectus: forests grew and game they hunted diminished. However, being better adapted to cold climate, they could first evade this situation by going more into the north. But at the end of the last glaciation about 10 ka the forests grew to a point that only a slim part of the megafauna survived. In addition, the woolly rhinoceros and mammoth suffered from the rain because they had no sebaceous glands such that their fur did not support the wetness. This disappearance also removed the livelihood of Neanderthal man. Furthermore, in contrast to the situation of the former interglacials, this time also modern humans disputed his food basis, which eventually destroyed him (p. 253).

However, according to more recent research, the Neanderthals already died out 5000 years after modern humans migrated into Europe, which happened around 45 ka, so long before the end of the last glaciation. Several scenarios have been proposed for the extinction. Until recently, climatic change was not emphasized, as the demise happened during MIS 3 and such warmer interglacials were thought to provide favorable living conditions. Some recent hypotheses, however, consider climatic and environmental factors to be major driving forces. In addition, the advent of modern humans in Europe may have given the “coup de grâce” to the highly stressed Neanderthals due to competition for severely limited resources during their coexistence (Henke & Tattersall 2015 p. 2265). As for woolly mammoths, they indeed went extinct after the last glaciation because of the disappearance of the steppe–tundra vegetation due to warmer and wetter climates (Wang et al. 2021), even though being hunted both by Neanderthals and modern humans may have contributed to their extermination (Burney & Flannery 2005). In any case, the intensified rainfall during several interglacials played a major role in the decimation of both animals and hominins.

Again according to Reichholf (1997 pp. 224-246), the cradle of humanity of eastern Africa was first a kind of terrestrial paradise. But when interglacials brought more rain than usual, their living conditions abruptly changed. The tsetse fly, whose bite transmits the sleeping sickness, rapidly multiplied because of the increased humidity and became a real plague. Its preferred prey were the naked bodies of humans, who were finally obliged to leave the African tsetse belt for the north.

Similarly to the cherubs described in Genesis 3:24, the tsetse fly therefore hunted humans out of their native country, where they were naked (Gen 2:25). Since it was colder in the north, they had to wear clothes (Gen 3:21), especially when a new and last glaciation occurred. Moreover, they practiced agriculture in Mesopotamia (Gen 3:17-19) for the first time at the end of the glaciation (sec. 3.1.5). This made them less dependent on hunting, but it was also necessary that they worked the ground “in the sweat of their face” (Gen 3:19). However, through their work, they transformed their habitat little by little into a new garden of Eden. The rain, therefore, again played a key role within this context, thus making a connection with the flood account. This may seem contradictory, as the expulsion from paradise is referred to by Genesis 2-3, not Genesis 4-11. But as we have seen in section 3.1.3, Adam and Noah are put in parallel, Noah being a new Adam. So it may be argued that what happened to Noah already happened to Adam to some extent.

Africa is indeed the home of most zoonotic diseases like malaria and the sleeping sickness, which have a severe impact on human health. This may have been the trigger for all four human species to leave the continent (). One of the wettest time affecting modern humans occurred around 125 ka, which is about when modern humans first left Africa. Witnesses of this exodus may be the Israeli remains of Skhul and Qafzeh. But this was probably an unsuccessful attempt (Liu at al. 2006; Balter 2011; Henke & Tattersall 2015 pp. 2382-2383). A second wave may have taken place around 80 ka, even though the date, the routes taken and the number of dispersals is uncertain (López et al. 2016; Malaspinas et al. 2016; Pagani et al. 2016; Tucci & Akey 2016). It is possible that this occurred during the interglacial MIS 5a when the deserts were green again. This happened indeed 125, 100, and 80 ka (Larrasoaña 2012). Before these migrations, the desert belt during the dry glacial MIS 6 possibly hindered any expansion (Armitage et al. 2011).

References

  1. Agustí, J., & Lordkipanidze, D. (2011). How “African” was the early human dispersal out of Africa? Quaternary Science Reviews, 30(11-12), 1338-1342.
  2. Argue, D., Groves, C. P., Lee, M. S., & Jungers, W. L. (2017). The affinities of Homo floresiensis based on phylogenetic analyses of cranial, dental, and postcranial characters. Journal of human evolution, 107, 107-133.
  3. Armitage, S. J., Jasim, S. A., Marks, A. E., Parker, A. G., Usik, V. I., & Uerpmann, H. P. (2011). The southern route “out of Africa”: evidence for an early expansion of modern humans into Arabia. Science, 331(6016), 453-456.
  4. Athreya, S., & Hopkins, A. (2021). Conceptual issues in hominin taxonomy: Homo heidelbergensis and an ethnobiological reframing of species. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 175, 4-26.
  5. Bae, C. J. (2010). The late Middle Pleistocene hominin fossil record of eastern Asia: synthesis and review. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 53, 75-93.
  6. Balter, M. (2011). Was North Africa the Launch Pad for Modern Human Migrations? Science, 331(6013), 20-23.
  7. Bar-Yosef, O., & Belfer-Cohen, A. (2001). From Africa to Eurasia—early dispersals. Quaternary International, 75(1), 19-28.
  8. Bengtson, P. (1988). Open Nomenclature. Palaeontology, 31(1), 223-227.
  9. Benítez-López, A., Santini, L., Gallego-Zamorano, J., Milá, B., Walkden, P., Huijbregts, M. A., & Tobias, J. A. (2021). The island rule explains consistent patterns of body size evolution in terrestrial vertebrates. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(6), 768-786.
  10. Beyene, Y., Katoh, S., WoldeGabriel, G., Hart, W. K., Uto, K., Sudo, M., . . . Asfaw, B. (2013). The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(5), 1584-1591.
  11. Bonnette, D. (2014). Origin of the Human Species (3rd ed.). Ave Maria: Sapientia Press.
  12. Bouzouggar, A., Barton, N., Vanhaeren, M., d'Errico, F., Collcutt, S., Higham, T., . . . Stringer, C. (2007). 82,000-year-old shell beads from North Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(24), 9964-9969.
  13. Brown, M. H. (1990). The Search For Eve. New York: Harper & Row.
  14. Brown, P., & Maeda, T. (2009). Liang Bua Homo floresiensis mandibles and mandibular teeth: a contribution to the comparative morphology of a new hominin species. Journal of Human Evolution, 57(5), 571-596.
  15. Brown, P., Sutikna, T., Morwood, M. J., Soejono, R. P., Jatmiko, Wayhu Saptomo, E., & Awe Due, R. (2004). A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Nature, 431(7012), 1055-1061.
  16. Burney, D. A., & Flannery, T. F. (2005). Fifty millennia of catastrophic extinctions after human contact. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(7), 395-401.
  17. Callaway, E. (2017). Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species’ history. Nature, 546, 289-293.
  18. Cann, R. L., Stoneking, M., & Wilson, A. C. (1987). Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature, 325(6099), 31-36.
  19. Castro, J. M., & Martinón-Torres, M. (2019). What does Homo antecessor tell us about the origin of the “emergent humanity” that gave rise to Homo sapiens? Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 97, 209-213.
  20. Castro, J. M., & Martinón-Torres, M. (2020). A reply to Ribot et al. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 98, 171-179.
  21. Castro, J. M., Martinón-Torres, M., Gómez-Robles, A., & Prado, L. S. (2007). Comparative analysis of the Gran Dolina-TD6 (Spain) and Tighennif (Algeria) hominin mandibles. Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 19, 149-167.
  22. Castro, J. M., Xing, S., Liu, W., García-Campos, C., Martín-Francés, L., de Pinillos, M. M., . . . Martinón-Torres, M. (2021). Comparative dental study between Homo antecessor and Chinese Homo erectus: Nonmetric features and geometric morphometrics. Journal of Human Evolution, 161, 103087.
  23. Cieri, R. L., Churchill, S. E., Franciscus, R. G., Tan, J., & Hare, B. (2014). Craniofacial feminization, social tolerance, and the origins of behavioral modernity. Current Anthropology, 55(4), 419-443.
  24. Clark, J. D., de Heinzelin, J., Schick, K. D., Hart, W. K., White, T. D., WoldeGabriel, G., . . . H.-Selassie, Y. (1994). African Homo erectus: old radiometric ages and young Oldowan assemblages in the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. Science, 264(5167), 1907-1910.
  25. Conroy, G. C., Weber, G. W., Seidler, H., Recheis, W., Zur Nedden, D., & Mariam, J. H. (2000). Endocranial capacity of the Bodo cranium determined from three‐dimensional computed tomography. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 113(1), 111-118.
  26. Coppens, Y. (1983). Le singe, l'Afrique et l'homme. Paris: Fayard.
  27. Dapschauskas, R., Göden, M. B., Sommer, C., & Kandel, A. W. (2022). The emergence of habitual ochre use in Africa and its significance for the development of ritual behavior during the Middle Stone Age. Journal of World Prehistory, 35(3), 233-319.
  28. Darwin, C. (1874). The Descent of Man (2nd ed.). New York: D. Appelton & Company.
  29. Dawkins, R., & Wong, Y. (2017). An Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
  30. Deino, A. L., Behrensmeyer, A. K., Brooks, A. S., Yellen, J. E., Sharp, W. D., & Potts, R. (2018). Chronology of the Acheulean to Middle Stone Age transition in eastern Africa. Science, 360(6384), 95-98.
  31. Delson, E., & Stringer, C. (2022). The naming of Homo bodoensis by Roksandic and colleagues does not resolve issues surrounding Middle Pleistocene human evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 31(5), 233-236.
  32. Dembski, W., & McDowel, S. (2008). Understanding Intelligent Design. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers.
  33. D'Errico, F. V., Barton, N., Bouzouggar, A., Mienis, H., Richter, D., Hublin, J.-J., . . . Lozouet, P. (2009). Additional evidence on the use of personal ornaments in the Middle Paleolithic of North Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(38), 16051-16056.
  34. D'Errico, F., & Backwell, L. (2016). Earliest evidence of personal ornaments associated with burial: the Conus shells from Border Cave. Journal of Human Evolution, 93, 91-108.
  35. D'Errico, F., Backwell, L., Villa, P., Degano, I., Lucejko, J. J., Bamford, M. K., . . . Beaumont, P. B. (2012). Early evidence of San material culture represented by organic artifacts from Border Cave, South Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(33), 13214-13219.
  36. D'Errico, F., Henshilwood, C., Vanhaeren, M., & Van Niekerk, K. (2005). Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave: evidence for symbolic behaviour in the Middle Stone Age. Journal of Human Evolution, 48(1), 3-24.
  37. Ferring, R., Oms, O., Agustí, J., Berna, F., Nioradze, M., Shelia, T., . . . Lordkipanidze, D. (2011). Earliest human occupations at Dmanisi (Georgian Caucasus) dated to 1.85–1.78 Ma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(26), 10432-10436.
  38. Fleagle, J., Shea, J., Grine, F., Baden, A., & Leakey, R. (Eds.). (2010). Out of Africa I: the First Hominin Colonization of Eurasia. Springer.
  39. Foley, R. (1995). Humans Before Humanity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
  40. Foley, R., & Lahr, M. M. (1997). Mode 3 technologies and the evolution of modern humans. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 7(1), 3-36.
  41. Foley, R., & Lahr, M. M. (2003). On stony ground: lithic technology, human evolution, and the emergence of culture. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 12(3), 109-122.
  42. Fortes-Lima, C., Mtetwa, E., & Schlebusch, C. (Eds.). (2022). Africa, the Cradle of Human Diversity: Cultural and Biological Approaches to Uncover African Diversity (Vol. 26). Leiden, Boston: Brill.
  43. Gallotti, R., & Mussi, M. (Eds.). (2018). The Emergence of the Acheulean in East Africa and Beyond. Springer.
  44. Gibbons, A. (1997). A New Face for Human Ancestors. Science, 276(5317), 1331-1333.
  45. Gibbons, A. (2017). World’s oldest Homo sapiens fossils found in Morocco. Retrieved March 2024, from Science: https://www.science.org/content/article/world-s-oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils-found-morocco
  46. Gilbert, W. H., Doronichev, V. B., Golovanova, L. V., Morgan, L. E., Nunez, L., & Renne, P. (2016). Archaeology and context of Hugub, an important new Late Acheulean locality in Ethiopia's Northern Rift. PaleoAnthropology, 2016, 58-99.
  47. Gowlett, J. A. (2016). The discovery of fire by humans: a long and convoluted process. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1696), 20150164.
  48. Green, R. E., Krause, J., Ptak, S. E., Briggs, A. W., Ronan, M. T., Simons, J. F., . . . Pääbo, S. (2006). Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA. Nature, 444(7117), 330-336.
  49. Grimaldi, D., & Engel, M. (2005). Evolution of the Insects. Cambridge University Press.
  50. Grün, R., Pike, A., McDermott, F., Eggins, S., Mortimer, G., Aubert, M., . . . Brink, J. (2020). Dating the skull from Broken Hill, Zambia, and its position in human evolution. Nature, 580(7803), 372-375.
  51. Henke, W., & Tattersall, I. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of Paleoanthropology (2nd ed.). Springer.
  52. Henshilwood, C. S., d'Errico, F., Yates, R., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C., Duller, G. A., . . . Wintle, A. G. (2002). Emergence of modern human 'margin-left:36.0pt;text-indent:-36.0pt'>Henshilwood, C., d'Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Van Niekerk, K., & Jacobs, Z. (2004). Middle stone age shell beads from South Africa. Science, 304(5669), 404.
  53. Herczeg, G., Gonda, A., & Merilä, J. (2009). Evolution of gigantism in nine-spined sticklebacks. Evolution, 63(12), 3190-3200.
  54. Herries, A. I. (2011). A chronological perspective on the Acheulian and its transition to the Middle Stone Age in southern Africa: the question of the Fauresmith. International Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 2011.
  55. Hodgson, D. (2011). The first appearance of symmetry in the human lineage: Where perception meets art. Symmetry, 3(1), 37-53.
  56. Hublin, J.-J. (2013). The Middle Pleistocene record: On the ancestry of Neandertals, modern humans and others. In D. R. Begun (Ed.), A Companion to Paleoanthropology (pp. 517-537). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  57. Hublin, J.-J., Ben-Ncer, A., Bailey, S. E., Freidline, S. E., Neubauer, S., Skinner, M. M., . . . Gunz, P. (2017). New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens. Nature, 546(7657), 289-292.
  58. Jablonski, N. G. (2010). The Naked Truth. Scientific American, 302(2), 42-49.
  59. Key, A. J., & Dunmore, C. J. (2018). Manual restrictions on Palaeolithic technological behaviours. PeerJ, 6, e5399.
  60. Klein, R. G. (2005). Hominin Dispersals in the Old World. In C. Scarre (Ed.), The Human Past: World Prehistory and the Development of Human Societies (3rd ed., pp. 84-123). London: Thames & Hudson.
  61. Klein, R. G. (1995). Anatomy, behavior, and modern human origins. Journal of World Prehistory, 9, 167-198.
  62. Klein, R. G. (2009). The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins (3rd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
  63. Klotz, J. W. (1972). Genesis and Evolution (2nd ed.). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
  64. Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R. W., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M., & Pääbo, S. (1997). Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell, 90(1), 19-30.
  65. Kuman, K., Lotter, M. G., & Leader, G. M. (2020). The Fauresmith of South Africa: A new assemblage from Canteen Kopje and significance of the technology in human and cultural evolution. Journal of Human Evolution, 148, 102884.
  66. Larrasoaña, J. C. (2012). A Northeast Saharan perspective on environmental variability in North Africa and its implications for modern human origins. In J.-J. Hublin, & S. P. McPherron (Eds.), Modern Origins: A North African Perspective (pp. 19-34). Springer.
  67. Li, H., Kuman, K., Leader, G. M., & Couzens, R. (2018). Handaxes in South Africa: Two case studies in the early and later Acheulean. Quaternary International, 480, 29-42.
  68. Li, H., Kuman, K., Lotter, M. G., Leader, G. M., & Gibbon, R. J. (2017). The Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in the Acheulean at Canteen Kopje and implications for the cognitive evolution of early hominids. Royal Society Open Science, 4(6), 170288.
  69. Liu, H., Prugnolle, F., Manica, A., & Balloux, F. (2006). A geographically explicit genetic model of worldwide human-settlement history. The American journal of human genetics, 79(2), 230-237.
  70. López, S., Van Dorp, L., & Hellenthal, G. (2015). Human dispersal out of Africa: a lasting debate. Evolutionary Bioinformatics, 11(s2), 57-68.
  71. Lordkipanidze, D., León, M. S., Margvelashvili, A., Rak, Y., Rightmire, G. P., Vekua, A., & Zollikofer, C. P. (2013). A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo. Science, 342, 326-331.
  72. Malaspinas, A. S., Westaway, M. C., Muller, C., Sousa, V. C., Lao, O., Alves, I., . . . Heupink, T. H. (2016). A genomic history of Aboriginal Australia. Nature, 538(7624), 207-214.
  73. McBrearty, S., & Brooks, A. S. (2000). The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of human evolution, 39(5), 453-563.
  74. McNabb, J., & Cole, J. (2015). The mirror cracked: Symmetry and refinement in the Acheulean handaxe. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 3, 100-111.
  75. McNabb, J., Binyon, F., & Hazelwood, L. (2004). The large cutting tools from the South African Acheulean and the question of social traditions. Current Anthropology, 45(5), 653-677.
  76. Meneganzin, A., Pievani, T., & Manzi, G. (2022). Pan‐Africanism vs. single‐origin of Homo sapiens: Putting the debate in the light of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 31(4), 199-212.
  77. Morris, H. M. (Ed.). (1974). Scientific Creationism. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
  78. Morwood, M. J., & Jungers, W. L. (2009). Conclusions: implications of the Liang Bua excavations for hominin evolution and biogeography. Journal of Human Evolution, 57(5), 640-648.
  79. Nielsen, R., Akey, J. M., Jakobsson, M., Pritchard, J. K., Tishkoff, S., & Willerslev, E. (2017). Tracing the peopling of the world through genomics. Nature, 541(7637), 302-310.
  80. Niemitz, C. (2010). The evolution of the upright posture and gait—a review and a new synthesis. Naturwissenschaften, 97, 241-263.
  81. Nowell, A. (2010). Defining behavioral modernity in the context of Neandertal and anatomically modern human populations. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 437-452.
  82. Pagani, L., Lawson, D. J., Jagoda, E., Mörseburg, A., Eriksson, A., Mitt, M., . . . Wall, J. D. (2016). Genomic analyses inform on migration events during the peopling of Eurasia. Nature, 538(7624), 238-242.
  83. Panter-Brick, C., Layton, R. H., & Rowley-Conwy, P. (Eds.). (2001). Hunter-gatherers: an interdisciplinary perspective. Cambridge University Press.
  84. Porat, N., Chazan, M., Grün, R., Aubert, M., Eisenmann, V., & Horwitz, L. K. (2010). New radiometric ages for the Fauresmith industry from Kathu Pan, southern Africa: implications for the Earlier to Middle Stone Age transition. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(2), 269-283.
  85. Powell, A., Shennan, S., & Thomas, M. G. (2009). Late Pleistocene demography and the appearance of modern human behavior. Science, 324(5932), 1298-1301.
  86. Pun, P. P. (1982). Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict? Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
  87. Raia, P., & Meiri, S. (2006). The island rule in large mammals: paleontology meets ecology. Evolution, 60(8), 1731-1742.
  88. Ramm, B. (1964). The Christian View of Science and Scripture. The Paternoster Press.
  89. Rantala, M. J. (2007). Evolution of nakedness in Homo sapiens. Journal of Zoology, 273(1), 1-7.
  90. Reichholf, J. H. (1998). Das Rätsel der Menschwerdung: Die Entstehung des Menschen im Wechselspiel mit der Natur (4th ed.). München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
  91. Renne, P. R. (2000). Geochronology. In J. de Heinzelin, J. D. Clark, K. B. Schick, & H. Gilbert (Eds.), The Acheulean and the Plio-Pleistocene Deposits of the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia (pp. 47–50). Tervuren: Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale.
  92. Rightmire, G. P. (1998). Human Evolution in the Middle Pleistocene: the Role of Homo heidelbergens. Evolutionary Anthropology, 6(6), 218-227.
  93. Rightmire, G. P. (2008). Homo in the Middle Pleistocene: Hypodigms, variation, and species recognition. Evolutionary Anthropology, 17(1), 8-21.
  94. Rightmire, G. P., de León, M. S., Lordkipanidze, D., Margvelashvili, A., & Zollikofer, C. P. (2017). Skull 5 from Dmanisi: Descriptive anatomy, comparative studies, and evolutionary significance. Journal of Human Evolution, 104, 50-79.
  95. Rightmire, G. P., Margvelashvili, A., & Lordkipanidze, D. (2019). Variation among the Dmanisi hominins: Multiple taxa or one species? American journal of physical anthropology, 168(3), 481-495.
  96. Rizal, Y., Westaway, K. E., Zaim, Y., van den Bergh, G. D., Bettis III, E. A., Morwood, M. J., . . . Sidarto. (2020). Last appearance of Homo erectus at Ngandong, Java. Nature, 577(7790), 381-385.
  97. Roberts, M. B., Stringer, C. B., & Parfitt, S. A. (1994). A hominid tibia from Middle Pleistocene sediments at Boxgrove, UK. Nature, 369(6478), 311-313.
  98. Roksandic, M., Radović, P., Wu, X. J., & Bae, C. J. (2022). Resolving the “muddle in the middle”: the case for Homo bodoensis sp. nov. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 31(1), 20-29.
  99. Sankararaman, S., Mallick, S., Dannemann, M., Prüfer, K., Kelso, J., Pääbo, S., . . . Reich, D. (2014). The genomic landscape of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans. Nature, 507(7492), 354-357.
  100. Sarmiento, E. E., & Pickford, M. (2022). Muddying the muddle in the middle even more. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 31(5), 237-239.
  101. Scardia, G., Neves, W. A., Tattersall, I., & Blumrich, L. (2021). What kind of hominin first left Africa? Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 30(2), 122-127.
  102. Scerri, E. M., Thomas, M. G., Manica, A., Gunz, P., Stock, J. T., Stringer, C., . . . d’Errico, F. (2018). Did our species evolve in subdivided populations across Africa, and why does it matter? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 33(8), 582-594.
  103. Scheven, J. (1982). Daten zur Evolutionslehre im Biologieunterricht (2nd ed.). Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler-Verlag.
  104. Schwartz, J. H., Tattersall, I., & Chi, Z. (2014). Comment on “A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo”. Science, 344(6182), 360.
  105. Shea, J. J. (2003). Neandertals, competition, and the origin of modern human behavior in the Levant. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 12(4), 173-187.
  106. Shipton, C., Clarkson, C., & Cobden, R. (2019). Were Acheulean bifaces deliberately made symmetrical? Archaeological and experimental evidence. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 29(1), 65-79.
  107. Stout, D., Apel, J., Commander, J., & Roberts, M. (2014). Late Acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41, 576-590.
  108. Stringer, C., & Galway-Witham, J. (2017). On the origin of our species. Nature, 546(7657), 212-214.
  109. Sutikna, T., Tocheri, M. W., Morwood, M. J., Saptomo, E. W., Jatmiko, A. R., Wasisto, S., . . . Zhao, J. X. (2016). Revised stratigraphy and chronology for Homo floresiensis at Liang Bua in Indonesia. Nature, 532(7599), 366-369.
  110. Sykes, B. (2001). The Seven Daughters of Eve. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
  111. Tattersall, I. (2009). Human origins: out of Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(38), 16018-16021.
  112. Tattersall, I. (2016). A tentative framework for the acquisition of language and modern human cognition. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 94, 157-166.
  113. Trafí, F. R., Bartual, M. G., & Wang, Q. (2018). The affinities of Homo antecessor – a review of craniofacial features and their taxonomic validity. Anthropological Review, 81(3), 225-251.
  114. Trafí, F. R., Bartual, M. G., García-Nos, E., José, A., Enciso, A., Nevgloski, A. J., & Wang, Q. (2020). Another interpretation of Homo antecessor. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 98, 161-170.
  115. Tryon, C. A., & Faith, J. T. (2013). Variability in the middle stone age of eastern Africa. Current Anthropology, 54(S8), S234-S254.
  116. Tucci, S., & Akey, J. M. (2016). A map of human wanderlust. Nature, 538(7624), 179-180.
  117. Tucci, S., Vohr, S. H., McCoy, R. C., Vernot, B., Robinson, M. R., Barbieri, C., . . . Eichler, E. E. (2018). Evolutionary history and adaptation of a human pygmy population of Flores Island, Indonesia. Science, 361(6401), 511-516.
  118. Tuomisto, H., Tuomisto, M., & Tuomisto, J. T. (2018). How scientists perceive the evolutionary origin of human traits: Results of a survey study. Ecology and Evolution, 8(6), 3518-3533.
  119. Van den Bergh, G. D., Kaifu, Y., Kurniawan, I., Kono, R. T., Brumm, A., Setiyabudi, E., . . . Morwood, M. J. (2016). Homo floresiensis-like fossils from the early Middle Pleistocene of Flores. Nature, 534((760), 245-248.
  120. Vanhaeren, M., d'Errico, F., Stringer, C., James, S. L., Todd, J. A., & Mienis, H. K. (2006). Middle Paleolithic shell beads in Israel and Algeria. Science, 312(5781), 1785-1788.
  121. Vidal, C. M., Lane, C. S., Asrat, A., Barfod, D. N., Mark, D. F., Tomlinson, E. L., . . . Mounier, A. (2022). Age of the oldest known Homo sapiens from eastern Africa. Nature, 601(7894), 579-583.
  122. Villmoare, B. (2018). Early Homo and the role of the genus in paleoanthropology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 165, 72-89.
  123. Wagner, G. A., Krbetschek, M., Degering, D., Bahain, J. J., Shao, Q., Falguères, C., . . . Rightmire, G. P. (2010). Radiometric dating of the type-site for Homo heidelbergensis at Mauer, Germany. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(46), 19726-19730.
  124. Wall, J. D., & Kim, S. K. (2007). Inconsistencies in Neanderthal genomic DNA sequences. PLOS Genetics, 3(10), e175.
  125. Wang, Y., Pedersen, M. W., Alsos, I. G., De Sanctis, B., Racimo, F., Prohaska, A., . . . Rouillard, A. (2021). Late Quaternary dynamics of Arctic biota from ancient environmental genomics. Nature, 600(7887), 86-92.
  126. Watts, I., Chazan, M., & Wilkins, J. (2016). Early evidence for brilliant ritualized display: Specularite use in the Northern Cape (South Africa) between∼ 500 and∼ 300 ka. Current Anthropology, 57(3), 287-310.
  127. Whorton, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding Creation. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group.
  128. Wilkins, J., & Chazan, M. (2012). Blade production ∼500 thousand years ago at Kathu Pan 1, South Africa: support for a multiple origins hypothesis for early Middle Pleistocene blade technologies. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(6), 1883-1900.
  129. Wilkins, J., Schoville, B. J., Brown, K. S., & Chazan, M. (2012). Evidence for early hafted hunting technology. Science, 338(6109), 942-946.
  130. Wood, B., & Lonergan, N. (2008). The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades. Journal of Anatomy, 212(4), 354-376.
  131. Wurz, S. (2014). Southern and East African Middle Stone Age: Geography and Culture. In C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (pp. 6890-6912). Springer.
  132. Wynn, T. (2002). Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(3), 389-402.
  133. Wysocki, C. J., & Preti, G. (2004). Facts, fallacies, fears, and frustrations with human pheromones. The Anatomical Record, 281(1), 1201-1211.
  134. Zhu, Z., Dennell, R., Huang, W., Wu, Y., Qiu, S., Yang, S., . . . Ouyang, T. (2018). Hominin occupation of the Chinese Loess Plateau since about 2.1 million years ago. Nature, 559(7715), 608-612.
  135. Zilhão, J. (2007). The emergence of ornaments and art: an archaeological perspective on the origins of “behavioral modernity”. Journal of Archaeological Research, 15, 1-54.
  136. Zollikofer, C. P., de León, M. S., Margvelashvili, A., Rightmire, G. P., & Lordkipanidze, D. (2014). Response to comment on “a complete skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the evolutionary biology of early Homo. Science, 344(6182), 360.

 

 

View site statistics

This site is hosted by Byethost

Contact

Copyright © Vierge Press

 

 

 

< >