Re: AUSTRALOIDS

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Len Piotrowski: "Re: Evolution, "adaptation", and what's currently adaptive"
• Previous message: Matt Beckwith: "Re: how many bastards are there, anyway?"
• Maybe in reply to: E.G. Land: "AUSTRALOIDS"
• Next in thread: Chris Cracknell: "Re: AUSTRALOIDS"

Stephen Barnard (steve@megafauna.com) wrote:
: Eric Brunner wrote:
: >
---trimmed---

: The question of whether Australian Aborigines do or don't have a more
: direct relationship to Homo erectus than other races is a matter of
: fact, and it should have no political overtones. In particular, such a
: claim -- right or wrong -- does not necessarily imply a value judgement.

If H. erectus was a chronospecies, evolving as a population to early H.
sapiens and then to modern H. sapiens, then modern populations can be
specially related to H. erectus populations. Wolpoff is the strongest
proponent of this idea. If, on the other hand, H. sapiens in the strictly
modern sense evolved _once_, that model would be falsified. Right now, it's
looking like modern H. sapiens evolved once in Africa, but the evidence
is only suggestive.

Harry Erwin, Internet: herwin@gmu.edu, Web Page: http://osf1.gmu.edu/~herwin
49 year old PhD student in computational neuroscience ("how bats do it" 8)
and lecturer for CS 211 (data structures and advanced C++)

• Next message: Len Piotrowski: "Re: Evolution, "adaptation", and what's currently adaptive"
• Previous message: Matt Beckwith: "Re: how many bastards are there, anyway?"
• Maybe in reply to: E.G. Land: "AUSTRALOIDS"
• Next in thread: Chris Cracknell: "Re: AUSTRALOIDS"