Re: This might be an even more stupid question, but...

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Charles A. Kulosa: "Re: bipedalism and AAH"
• Previous message: Kevyn Loren Winkless: "Re: bipedalism and AAH"
• Maybe in reply to: Drew & Laurie Beck: "This might be an even more stupid question, but..."
• Next in thread: JShreeve: "Re: This might be an even more stupid question, but..."

In article <3ol5hd$1tps@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Drew & Laurie Beck <ljbeck1@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Hi--I'm new to this group and realize that you all have probably debated
>the subject of my question to death already, but here goes: From the
>"armchair anthropologist" research I've done so far, I've discerned two
>basic theories re: the emergence of "modern" humans. [goes on to
discuss "out of africa" and multiregional hypotheses]

You summed it up pretty well. The April 1992 Scientific American had a
couple of articles, one defending each theory. The "out of africa"
article was based on molecular biology arguments, the "multiregional"
article gave some arguments (which sounded very plausible) based on
fossils, showing that some regional characteristics of ancient humans
have been carried forward into modern populations.

Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins
Jim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765
The clinching proof of my reasoning is that I will cut anyone who argues
further into dogmeat. -- Sir Geoffery de Tourneville, ca 1350 A.D.

• Next message: Charles A. Kulosa: "Re: bipedalism and AAH"
• Previous message: Kevyn Loren Winkless: "Re: bipedalism and AAH"
• Maybe in reply to: Drew & Laurie Beck: "This might be an even more stupid question, but..."
• Next in thread: JShreeve: "Re: This might be an even more stupid question, but..."