[gore3000]

I could care less for your charts. Charts are proof of nothing. There was no gap. After erectus came Neanderthal and after Neanderthal came homo sapiens. The problem is that homo sapiens did not descend from Neanderthal and I already gave the proof of that. I also gave you the sources that prove that homo erectus was not around after 200,000 years ago. If you have proof otherwise, show it here. And no, unclassified fossils (which is what archaic this and archaic that means) do not count. In other words Vade let me make it real simple for you:

SHOW ME THE BONES OF A HOMO ERECTUS WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE LIVED LESS THAN 100,000 YEARS AGO.

[VadeRetro]

Charts are proof of nothing.

The data on the charts make your argument ridiculous.

There was no gap.

Indeed.

After erectus came Neanderthal and after Neanderthal came homo sapiens. The problem is that homo sapiens did not descend from Neanderthal and I already gave the proof of that. I also gave you the sources that prove that homo erectus was not around after 200,000 years ago. If you have proof otherwise, show it here.

At this point on this thread, in answer to the post it shams answering, simply self-discrediting. (There was not only no overall gap, there's no gap even if H. sapiens neanderthalensis is removed.)

SHOW ME THE BONES OF A HOMO ERECTUS WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE LIVED LESS THAN 100,000 YEARS AGO.

Same applies here.