Re: archaic Homo sapiens

J. Moore (
Sat, 23 Sep 95 19:11:00 -0500

Vi> >Vi> I am a follower and believer of the *out of Africa* theory
Vi> >Vi> that Homo sapiens came out of Africa 200,000 or so years ago and
Vi> >Vi> replaced Homo erectus without interbreeding with him.
Vi> >Vi> I find the appearance of archaic Homo sapiens or *transitional
Vi> >Vi> forms* such as Petrolona man found in Greece very disturbing.
Vi> >Vi> Am I overlooking something simple?
Vi> >Vi> Appreciate any input.
Vi> >Vi> Vincent1.
Vi> >
Vi> >The idea that in science, you shouldn't be "a follower and
Vi> >believer"? ;-)
Vi> >
Vi> >Along with the idea that the part of the "out of Africa" thesis
Vi> >that insists on "no interbreeding" seems mighty unlikely, given
Vi> >exogamy in humans and our near relatives.
Vi> >Jim Moore (

Vi> Thank you but you did not answer my question.
Vi> Vincent1.

The "something simple" you were looking for was my first
paragraph: in science, you should avoid being "a believer" in a
theory, because when you simply follow and believe in a theory,
you are always going to have a hard time changing your ideas in the
face of opposing data. Science requires this ability to change
your ideas when data tells you you should.

The second paragraph was just one simple reason for rejecting that
part of the "out of Africa" thesis which insists on the highly
unlikely event of no interbreeding having occurred.

Both short and simple.

Jim Moore (

* Q-Blue 2.0 *