Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Origins: Let's Talk Mitochondrial Eve
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 15 of 29 (284841)
02-08-2006 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pensees
12-24-2005 12:28 AM


Even if this were a small ancestral group instead of one woman, wouldn't that rule out fossil forms that existed much earlier than 200,000 years ago as our direct ancestors? If there is a substantial gap between our own species and the nearest fossil ancestor, would that not pose a problem to Darwinian gradualism? In other words, if H. erectus became extinct 250,000 years ago, from whom did we come from?
I don't think any modern paleoanthropologist has said that modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) evolved directly from Homo erectus.
A number of fossils have been found of Archaic Humans, that existed in a time frame that overlaps the existence of H. erectus and the origin of of modern humans. Look up data on fossils such as Homo rhodesiensis
It is quite possible, and most phylogenies model it as, that H. ergaster (early African erectus form) is an ancestor to the archaic H. sapiens, who are, in turn, ancestors to modern humans (H. sapiens sapiens).

Loving is a journey with water and with stars,
with smothered air and abrupt storms of flour:
loving is a clash of lightning-bolts
and two bodies defeated by a single drop of honey.
- Pablo Neruda

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pensees, posted 12-24-2005 12:28 AM Pensees has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024