Re: archaic Homo sapiens
Vincent DeLuca (vincent1@ix.netcom.com)
14 Sep 1995 03:54:54 GMT
In <436b3k$dt9@newsbf02.news.aol.com> jamshreeve@aol.com (JamShreeve)
writes:
>
>What you're overlooking is that according to the Out of Africa
hypothesis,
>it wasn't just Homo erectus that was replaced in Europe and Asia, but
also
>the resident forms of archaic Homo sapiens, of which Petralona is an
early
>example. The scenario would have it that an archaic population in
Africa
>evolved into modern humans well after Petralona was alive, around
300,000
>years ago (if I remember right). So there isn't any conflict. That
>doesn't mean that Out of Africa is the way it happened, of course:
only
>that Petralona does not refute that particular scenario.
> Thank you for your answer;however, I would appreciate it if you could
just give me a short definition of archaic Homo sapiens because a bit
of confusion still remains.
Vincent1.
|