Re: archaic Homo sapiens

Vincent DeLuca (
25 Sep 1995 04:20:06 GMT

In <> (J. Moore)
>Vi> >Vi> I am a follower and believer of the *out of Africa*
>Vi> >Vi> that Homo sapiens came out of Africa 200,000 or so years ago
>Vi> >Vi> replaced Homo erectus without interbreeding with him.
>Vi> >Vi> I find the appearance of archaic Homo sapiens or
>Vi> >Vi> forms* such as Petrolona man found in Greece very
>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 *

We are dealing with two *different* species, Homo erectus and
sapiens. It is a bit rare,especially in the animal kingdom, for two
different species to have progeny eventhough they can have sex. Please
don`t bring up the mule!
By the way: I am a follower and believer in the theory of