Re: so H sapiens evolved from H. erectus?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Frank Manning: "Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)"
• Previous message: mb: "Re: WHO's misrepresenting who???"
• Maybe in reply to: daniel hwang: "so H sapiens evolved from H. erectus?"
• Next in thread: Susan S. Chin: "Re: so H sapiens evolved from H. erectus?"

Susan S. Chin wrote:
>
> daniel hwang (dhwang@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>
> : given our extreme similarity to the Chimpanzee, i wouldn't be
> : surprised if we are fully interfertile with H. erectus.

> the two species are separated by *time* as well. That in itself is an
> isolating mechanism, which as far as I'm aware, constitutes basis for
> calling them distinct species.

I have been puzzling over this post for days. It seems obvious that
however closely we're related to chimps, we are much more closely
related to H.e.

Since it is unlikely any modern human ever met an H.e., we are
technically separate species. I wonder, given our inherent
chronological bias, just how important that distinction is.
I suspect we are more closely related then most are willing to admit. A
better understanding of our ancestors can only improve our understanding
of ourselves.

hob

• Next message: Frank Manning: "Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)"
• Previous message: mb: "Re: WHO's misrepresenting who???"
• Maybe in reply to: daniel hwang: "so H sapiens evolved from H. erectus?"
• Next in thread: Susan S. Chin: "Re: so H sapiens evolved from H. erectus?"