Why is there only one human species? | BBC

[Anymouse]

The BBC has a short article and video of why, since there were several hominid species, only one survives today.
Warning: Contains evolution theory. Not suitable material for science deniers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13874671
James.

[Minimalist]

I still have serious reservations about the Toba theory. Too many other species seem not to know that they were killed off by the blast.

[Faith No More]

Humans like to kill anything very similar to themselves. Look at how much ethnicity cause people to kill each other today. I'm sure we had a large part in wiping out anything in the homo genus, not just by competing for resources, but actively eliminating anything like us.

[liferocks]

The BBC has a short article and video of why, since there were several hominid species, only one survives today.
Warning: Contains evolution theory. Not suitable material for science deniers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13874671
James.

Video proclaims that femur in question was from an Erectus and is “similar to us”. How do they know that the femur was from an “erectus” (it looks exactly like absolutely any human femur)?
The writings under the “Stiff Competition” sub heading claim "The Homo erectus brain did not devote a lot of space to the part of the brain that controls language and speech," as quoted by John Shea.
Did Professor Shea arrive at this conclusion from scientific data obtained from carefully analyzed brain matter obtained from fossil records (think about it), was he able to question the Erectus, or were conclusions made based on, now here’s the big word of the day, “FAITH” in science.
By the way Anymouse, I’m not denying science, just asking questions.
On the matter of the BBC did anybody else hear this. A man was in London was caught trying to steal 10 pounds of batteries by actually eating all of them. The police have caught him and he has been charged. Sorry I know that one was lame.

[Faith No More]

Did Professor Shea arrive at this conclusion from scientific data obtained from carefully analyzed brain matter obtained from fossil records (think about it), was he able to question the Erectus, or were conclusions made based on, now here’s the big word of the day, “FAITH” in science.

It's not faith. We know what parts of our brains control language and speech, so if Homo erectus didn't dedicate much of its brain to this region, it was not very adept at communication. By studying brain injuries in humans and determining what parts of the brain are damaged and what functions are lost, we know what part of the brain does what. No faith needed.

[liferocks]

It's not faith. We know what parts of our brains control language and speech, so if Homo erectus didn't dedicate much of its brain to this region, it was not very adept at communication. By studying brain injuries in humans and determining what parts of the brain are damaged and what functions are lost, we know what part of the brain does what. No faith needed.

I do believe that science holds many valuable answers for us , but FaithNoMore, you say that brain injuries in humans can be studied. That is because the actual brain or subject are present to question, dissect, analyse. Fossil records have no brain matter intact and the subject, in this case the "Erectus", is not present for inquiry.
I was taught evolution in high school, never questioned it then but things like this are now what I am seeking to answer. What you say to me now is in relation to what we know of human biology in regards to present human beings, not lower life forms or erectus that science claims no longer exist. This is one line of my thinking that as of yet still remains in dispute.

[Faith No More]

I do believe that science holds many valuable answers for us , but FaithNoMore, you say that brain injuries in humans can be studied. That is because the actual brain or subject are present to question, dissect, analyse. Fossil records have no brain matter intact and the subject, in this case the "Erectus", is not present for inquiry.
I was taught evolution in high school, never questioned it then but things like this are now what I am seeking to answer. What you say to me now is in relation to what we know of human biology in regards to present human beings, not lower life forms or erectus that science claims no longer exist. This is one line of my thinking that as of yet still remains in dispute.

It's not just in relation to human biology, but that of all primates. We know from studying other primates, that the different areas of the brain perform the same functions in them as well. The difference in humans are the size of these different areas. We can determine how big these areas are in fossils from the size and shape of the skull cavity.

[liferocks]

It's not just in relation to human biology, but that of all primates. We know from studying other primates, that the different areas of the brain perform the same functions in them as well. The difference in humans are the size of these different areas. We can determine how big these areas are in fossils from the size and shape of the skull cavity.

You say that we have studied and I will assume compared our brain to other primates but my question remains unanswered. The BBC is making comparisons to present human brains and the brain of the erectus, not of primates.
How did they arrive at scientific conclusions from something, in this case potentially a fossil, that could not possibly reveal the results that they are claiming?
Read the quote I previously posted and ask, "What was there from the erectus fossils, not present day humans or primates, to make a claim about functions of certain parts of the erectus brain?"
Actually there is one thing I do know that cavemen and Paris Hilton have in common. They both like to go clubbing.
Sorry, I know that sucks but it's getting late, drank too much wine. Good night.

[Anymouse]

You say that we have studied and I will assume compared our brain to other primates but my question remains unanswered. The BBC is making comparisons to present human brains and the brain of the erectus, not of primates.
How did they arrive at scientific conclusions from something, in this case potentially a fossil, that could not possibly reveal the results that they are claiming?
Read the quote I previously posted and ask, "What was there from the erectus fossils, not present day humans or primates, to make a claim about functions of certain parts of the erectus brain?"

Uh, Erectus was a primate. As it was said, we know from studying brains and craniums how the brain develops inside the craniums of all animals we have studied, not just primates.
Y'ain't gonna get a cerebrum of a modern human in the cranium of a chimp, or Erectus. Won't fit, that's that.
Biology is not my specialty, (Romance novels and aircraft and shipboard electronics are), but since like most things in evolution, new stuff is piled onto old, and the old stuff is still there (we can see that comparing human brains for example, to other animals), it is not too hard to see by checking out an Erectus cranium what parts had not been piled on yet to the Erectus brain.

Actually there is one thing I do know that cavemen and Paris Hilton have in common. They both like to go clubbing.

That's cute.
[/font]

[martin02]

While there is much paleontologists assert which seems to be drawn from the ether, brain size and function ain't it.

It may be that Erectus used it's ample behind to think with, but it'll take more that a parallel with those I disagree with to convince this is possible.