Re: so H sapiens evolved from H. erectus?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Paul Z. Myers: "Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!""
• Previous message: James Howard: "Race"
• 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 (susansf@netcom.com) wrote:

: Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are obviously two separate species, if not
: always distinctly so (archaic H.s. vs. late H.erectus) But the two
: species are separated not only morphologically, but in most instances
: aside from that just mentioned (the parenthetical example cited above)
: 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.

Surely separation in time can't form a basis for calling them separate
species? That would make 20th century humans a different species to 17th
century humans. Separation is a mechanism by which one species may give
rise to two, but in itself it does not constitute a basis for calling
two creatures distinct species.

Andrew Millard

• Next message: Paul Z. Myers: "Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!""
• Previous message: James Howard: "Race"
• 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?"