Vade, you have the word archaic in a chart you yourself drew! And that is supposed to mean something? Paleontologists all the time refer to archaic this and archaic that for bones that they have not found. As usual you are talking semantics, not substance.Your arguments are so pathetic! I sourced the chart the first time I pasted it in. (I only pasted it because you're such a notorious slacker at clicking links.) Once again, the chart is from The TalkOrigins Fossil Hominid Species Page. Lest you go after the messenger for making up this species, we'll try a web search:
Let's look at the first page up:
Early Modern Homo sapiens. (Is "early modern" an oxymoron? Is Homo sapiens an oxymoron?)
Current data suggest that Homo sapiens sapiens very likely evolved from archaic Homo sapiens relatively rapidly in Africa and/or the Southwest Asia.Link 3 has a nice timeline of the archaic/modern/neanderthal overlap:
From Archaic Homo Sapiens. Your gap game is over for this era.
The text with this figure speaks of the intergrading of the various specimens that makes species assignment so difficult:
It is difficult to speak of our ancestors in terms of specific species during this long period of accelerated change from 600,000 to 100,000 years ago. Some paleoanthropologists now classify the more biologically progressive post-600,000 B.P. populations in Europe and parts of Africa as a distinct species--Homo heidelbergensis. By 300,000 years ago, some of these populations had begun the evolutionary transition that would end up with Neandertals and other peoples that have been collectively referred to has archaic Homo sapiens (shown as red in the diagram below [Well, now it's above.--VR]). By 100,000 B.P., some of the later archaic Homo sapiens had evolved into modern Homo sapiens. Complicating the picture is the fact that, in at least one area of Southeast Asia, a few Homo erectus remained until around at least 60,000 years ago.
Some of the other links look pretty interesting too, but I'll get on to your other replies.
