[gore3000]

No Vade, there is no such thing as "archaic" anything. Classified finds have names, they have a species name. And the upper age for homo sapiens is 100,000 years ago not 120,000. This is the 3rd or 4th post where you make an excuse instead of delivering the goods.

[Junior]

the upper age for homo sapiens is 100,000 years ago not 120,000.

Considering morphologically H. Erectus shades into H. Sapiens over this time period, and Vade has already shown you skulls from this time frame, and has also explained to you the nomenclature surrounding Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Archaic Homo Sapiens. Your inability to grasp even simple concepts does not speak well for your ability to grasp something as involved as the theory of evolution. Which lends credence to our theory as to why you cannot answer Vade's question dealing with teats on dinosaurs -- you really don't have any idea of that which you speak in regards to the theory of evolution.

[VadeRetro]

"Rhodesian Man", Homo sapiens (archaic) (was Homo rhodesiensis)

Discovered by a laborer in 1921 at Broken Hill in Northern Rhodesia (now Kabwe in Zambia) (Woodward 1921). This was a complete cranium that was very robust, with large brow ridges and a receding forehead. Estimated age is between 200,000 and 125,000 years. The brain size was about 1280 cc.

Prominent Hominid Fossils.

So, what's next?

SO WHERE ARE ALL THE HOMINID FOSSILS FROM BETWEEN 125,000 YEARS AGO AND 100,000 YEARS AGO POST THE PROOF HERE VADE COME ON YOU MUST HAVE A TON OF THEM YEAH RIGHT!