Re: 30,000 year old Homo erectus - ajava [1/1]

Paul Kekai Manansala (
Fri, 20 Dec 96 00:46:13 GMT

In article <59cjps$>, (Timo Niroma) wrote:
>In article <>,
>(Stanley Friesen) says:
>> (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
>>>I'm not sure how it supports the Out of Africa hypothesis unless there
>>>is some modification to the replacement concept.
>>A. Because the Multi-regional theory require that all H. erectus
>>populations evolved over time into H. sapiens populations, over the
>>entire range. So, if the two forms really overlapped in time, then
>>gradual conversion of one into the other throughout their area is
>>B. The replacement hypothesis only states that some time before modern
>>times H. sapiens replaced all prior species of Homo. It really says
>>nothing about the *timing* of that replacement.
>>> Wolpoff argues that
>>>certain non-adaptive traits are shared between Homo Erectus of Java
>>>and modern Australians. If we accept genetic exchange, which Wolpoff
>>>does, then the Out of Africa hypothesis might be supported but minus
>>>total replacement theory.
>>Retention of distinctive morphology *at* *all* for several 10's of
>>thousands of years of population contact is impossible in the presence
>>of any significant gene flow. The presence of a form with a definite
>>H. erectus morphology at a 30Ka BP date is nearly absolute proof of
>>*lack* of gene flow between H. sapiens and H. erectus. Ergo, Out-of-

That would depend on a number of factors. Gene flow did not have to occur
among all populations in the region. It also did not have to occur during
the whole period of contact. Homo Erectus was not immobile. The population
could have come from an area where no gene flow with sapiens had occurred.

>>> However, there was no mention of genetic
>>>exchange in the article, which still leaves the question open has to
>>>modern humans in SE Asia/Pacific share certain non-selective
>>>cranial features with Java Man (Homo Erectus).
>>The point is that the presence of a H. erectu as a distinct population
>>that late makes any genetic exchange virtually out of the question.

Read above. The H. erectus finds were not really that distinct. That's why
Wolpoff is arguing that they really are just a variant of H. sapiens.
Without genetic exchange, Wolpoff's theory still has validity.

>>In short, it pretty much demolishes Wolpoff's contention of shared
>>non-adaptive traits. Either the traits really are adaptive, or the
>>supposedly shared traits are not really the same traits.

That's a very hard sell. It would have been better if you gave some reasons
why you think these traits are adaptive. I don't have any doubt that they
are shared features. It's very obvious when you compare the cranium.

>>The peace of God be with you.

Happy holidays,

Paul Kekai Manansala