Archaic is a generic word which can be used for anything so your statement is just your usual attempt at confusionism.
You posted skulls that were irrelevant to the discussion, they have all been long extinct. None of them could have been ancestors of homo sapiens because they were long extinct by the time that homo sapiens appeared. As I have said, the dead do not reproduce. Let's see you refute that.
Please source the following claims which you have made recently:
1) There is a gap in hominid species after 4mya.
2) Hippos have been eliminated by DNA evidence as a nearest-relative of cetaceans.
3) Gould actually meant to say that creationists quote him correctly.
4) Evolutionists believe that humans descended from one of the modern primate species (all those apes and monkeys are really the same thing anyway) and simultaneously have known for thirty years that this is false.
VadeRetro: You said there was no trace of archaic Homo sapiens.
gore3000: Archaic is a generic word which can be used for anything so your statement is just your usual attempt at confusionism.
When I refer to archaic Homo sapiens I mean the fossil species of that name. It's on the chart.
6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0
|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| | | | | | |
| | | A.robustus ****** | |
| | | A.boisei ***********| |
| | A.aethiopicus **** | | |
| | | | | | |
O.tugenensis * ? | | | | | |
A.r.kadabba ****** | | | | | |
| A.ramidus * | | | | |
| A.anamensis **** | | | |
| A.afarensis ********** | | |
| | K.platyops * | | | |
| | A.africanus *********** | |
| | | A.garhi * | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | H.habilis ********** | |
| | | | H.erectus **************** |
| | | | H.antecessor * |
| | | | archaic H.sapiens *****|
| | | | | Neandertals **|
| | | | | modern H.sapiens **
| | | | | | |
|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.
You have no case. There isn't even a gap, not that gaps prove anything.