|
|
Re: 'Out of Africa' still only a theory?!?!?
Richard Spear (rspear@primenet.com)
Fri, 29 Sep 1995 02:46:06 GMT
GAS95004@UConnVM.UConn.Edu (Geoff Stiles) wrote:
>Perhaps I'm just blind to the evidence that contradicts the 'Out of Africa'
>idea, but how can people believe that the human species could have evolved
>over an area as enormous as Homo erectus occupied - Asia, Africa, Europe.
>There is no way that a single species could stay intact over such an enormous
>area, not and remain a single functioning biological unit. Homo sapiens must
>be the product of a relatively small isolated community of Homo erectus
>(ergaster) that through mutation and selection became something else, something
>that was better adapted and who's reproductive fitness was greater than others'
>
>If anyone has other ideas I'd be interested to hear them...
>
>Geoff
Well Geoff -
Humans currently occupy every corner of the globe and I really don't
see why you would think that a less extensive occupation would be
unlikely in the past. The central problems with the Eve theory ("Out
of Africa") are that there is no evidence at all of any cultural
advantage held by the replacers, The biological evidence is suspect
(faulty cladograms, an unreliable clock) and ther *is* compelling
evidence of erectus/AMH continuity in a number of locations throughout
the world.
Richard
|