Re: 30,000 year old Homo erectus
Stanley Friesen (sarima@ix.netcom.com)
Thu, 19 Dec 1996 06:03:54 GMT
pmanansala@csus.edu (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
contradicted.
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 the
>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-
Africa.
> However, there was no mention of genetic
>exchange in the article, which still leaves the question open has to how
>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.
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.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
|