Thanks. All humans are just one species. All the humans that came before are still here in all of us (bits and pieces) around the world. Just look around.
Ahhh...you must've noticed my prominent brow ridge. LOL!
All humans are just one species. All the humans that came before are still here in all of us (bits and pieces) around the world. Just look around.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interesting summation in the link of Wolpoff's theories. Do you agree with his five races theory?
"--- Wolpoff and his colleagues of the University of Michigan, because they believe the five main human races - Negroid, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australian aborigines and southern African bushmen -began their evolutionary divergence well before becoming anatomically modern Homo sapiens, totally reject the 'out of Africa' hypothesis, whereby all modern people owe their ancestry to Africa only -the Noah's Ark theory.
Wolpoff is supported by Alan Thorne of the Australian National University.
According to Shipman, Wolpoff and others are now - '? proposing nothing less than the complete abolition of Homo erectus on the grounds that the species is insufficiently distinct from Homo sapiens.
All fossil specimens of Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens (including Neanderthals), ? should be reclassified into a single species, Homo sapiens, that is, subdivided only into races.' (Emphasis added throughout.)
Under the Wolpoff/Thorne scheme the new definition of Homo sapiens would include all human ancestors with brain sizes from 850 - 2000+cc. Of course this would totally exclude the australopithecines and the phantom 'habilis' - a position which creationists would thoroughly endorse.
Wolpoff and Thorne argue (correctly) that H. habilis is too morphologically distinct from both erectus and sapiens and therefore should be excluded from the genus Homo.
John Reader has also outlined many of the problems facing 'habilis', and concludes - '? more than twenty years of accumulating evidence and discussion have left Homo habilis more insecure than it ever was.
Creationists again would agree because it seems obvious that 'habilis' is only an australopithecine ape.
Wolpoff and Thorne cannot find any consistent anatomical markers which separate erectus from sapiens. They point to the mix of sapiens and erectus features in the two recently discovered Chinese fossil skulls which virtually proves that erectus and sapiens are members of the same species and the taxon Homo erectus should be laid to rest.
Other authorities such as Rightmire disagree, claiming that the minor distinctions which Wolpoff et al. consider as merely racial variations, are sufficient to keep separate species classifications.
On these same pages, Shipman points out the difficulties in identifying meaningful points for measuring skull vault thickness for example. The variation, individual to individual, is considerable and this is exactly one of the points which I am attempting to make- 'evolution' has nothing to do with it. The differences between the various forms of archaic Homo sapiens relates, at least in part, to a combination of climatic, dietary, maturational and longevity-driven factors.
In a short article in 1990, Maslen cites Dr Thorne as saying - '? the fossil record reveals that the features possessed by the early hominids who lived in Europe, Asia and Africa, have exactly the same sort of range as those we see in modern people. ---"